0370 270 6000

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

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


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.


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