No objective bias where Taxing Master adjudicated on case involving tax accountant bearing his name

Judicial review – challenge to the decisions of the Taxing Master - two separate sets of proceedings three orders for costs were made in favour of the notice party as against the applicant - order of the Court of Appeal and two High Court orders - three certificates of costs issued by the Taxing Master – granted leave to judicially review – tax accountant used by notice party bears the name of the Taxing Master – objective bias - perception that the Taxing Master has a direct or indirect interest in that accountancy business -nemo judex in sua causa – lack of basic fair procedures - unreasonably exercised his discretion not to accede to the applicant’s application for an adjournment and therefore the applicant did not have an opportunity to instruct cost accountants – no adequate reasons given for the adjournment – methodology was not compliance with principles of natural and constitutional justice and fairness – would have asked the Taxing Master to recuse himself had he known of previous professional relationship with the Notice Party’s accountant – in hospital for some time after bill of costs received – no tax accountant instructed – sufficient time given - application for adjournment refused - no error of law in the Taxing Master refusing the adjournment sought – damages sought for breach of constitutional rights - three judgment mortgages were registered against the applicant – did not lodge monies in court or take any other step to avoid the judgment mortgage or any other possible publication of the awards - has not demonstrated any entitlement to an award of damages - taxing master’s function – judicial immunity - impropriety on the part of the taxing master on the basis that he may derive a benefit from the business relationship he enjoys with the accountant on behalf of the notice party and this raises doubt as to his impartiality and his propriety - failing to disclose his actual or potential conflict of interest – failure of the Taxing Master should swear an affidavit - statement of grounds no assertion of mala fides or impropriety on the part of the Taxing Master - registration of a business name does not confer any propriety rights in the name - applicant has not made out a case that the Taxing Master has any interest whatsoever in the notice party’s tax accountants’ business because they use the name - Taxing Master who has specialist expertise with the function of decision making on a conflict is therefore entitled to the limited immunity available to judges - test of objective bias - reasonable observer - reasonable observer would not form the view that the Taxing Master had difficulty in maintaining complete objectivity and impartiality or that the circumstances cast doubt on the integrity of the Taxing Master in or about the discharge of his functions - reasonable observer would not be apprehensive that the applicant would not have had a fair hearing from an impartial judge on the issues – judicial review refused.