No objective bias arises from judge having represented plaintiff as a barrister

Application to set aside judgment – come to their attention that a member of the Court acted for the plaintiffs while practising as a barrister – Bank sought judgment – receivers appointed – Compromise Agreement – alleged breach of agreement – liability to be written off in return for a lower payment – one member of the Court who sat on the appeal acted on one occasion for the Bank in 2014 and Grant Thornton in 2017 – objective bias – cogent and rational link so as to give rise to the reasonable apprehension test – no suggestion of pecuniary interest – Supreme Court of a view that when asked to adjudicate on whether one of its own judgments was tainted by objective bias, it should err on the side of caution – independent referral bar – nothing to prevent that judge as a barrister from acting against the Bank of Grant Thornton following the 2014 and 2017 litigation – important that when appellate court panel is being assembled that at least some members have a particular background in the area of law involved – party is an institutional litigant – to be expected that those parties have frequent business before the court – no need to draw prior involvement to the attention of the parties when the prior litigation had no connection with the dispute coming before the court – if he had done so, any request for recusal should have been refused – no rational basis upon which the judge should have recused himself – give rise to attempts at forum shopping for litigants – application to set aside the judgment refused.