header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
02 August 2007 / Louis Flannery KC
Issue: 7284 / Categories: Features , Profession
printer mail-detail

Judges in the dock

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Hostility and animosity. Louis Flannery looks at
a shocking case of judicial bias

In February 2006, I wrote about judicial bias after the decision of the Court of Appeal in AWG Group Ltd v Morrison [2006] EWCA Civ 6, [2006] 1 All ER 967, suggesting that judges should heed the advice given by their appellate superiors (see 156 NLJ 7212, pp 278–79). In that case, Mr Justice Evans-Lombe had been told he was wrong to have refused to recuse himself after it had become apparent that he was acquainted with one of the witnesses in a case before him.

 It seems that the advice in AWG has been ignored by a prominent judge sitting in the Chancery Division: Mr Justice Peter Smith.
In Howell v Lees Millais [2007] EWCA Civ 720, [2007] All ER (D) 64 (Jul), Peter Smith J was roundly criticised for rejecting an invitation to stand down in a case. The case illustrates the danger that judges being asked to recuse themselves will not be able to view the application

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll