0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Sengupta v Holmes and others

7 August 2002
The issues

Permission to Appeal – judicial bias.

The facts

The Appellant sought leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal. His Application was refused on paper by Lord Justice Laws. The Application was renewed before two Lord Justices, who granted permission. When the Appeal itself was listed, the Tribunal included Lord Justice Laws. The Claimant argued that the Lord Justice should recuse himself on grounds of apparent bias. The Lord Chancellor instructed Counsel to represent him as an intervener.

The decision

1. Nothing in the case suggested there was any particular reason why Lord Justice Laws should recuse himself. The test for bias had already been approved by the House of Lords in McGill -v- Porter. Here, all the Judge had done was to conclude that the result in the Court below was correct. It had been in his mind that his view might be reconsidered. There was no reasonable basis for supposing he would not bring an open mind to bear on the substantive Appeal.


Was it also a matter of clearing the air on principle that the Lead Judgment in this case with which the other two Lord Justices concurred, should have been given by Lord Justice Laws?

Whilst one recognises the importance of the Judiciary being protected from random accusations of bias, one also wonders how a lay party would view the decision and its circumstances.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up