header-logo header-logo

Standing aside

05 January 2018 / Ben Amunwa
Issue: 7775 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail
nlj_7775_amunwa_0

Post-Vanderbilt, Ben Amunwa examines where the lines are when it comes to recusal

  • When recusal is deemed appropriate
  • Consequences of failing to make an application for recusal

Should judges recuse themselves if they practise in the same chambers as a barrister in the case? No, according to the Court of Appeal in Vanderbilt v Azumi and others [2017] EWCA Civ 2133. However, such cases are fact-sensitive. Certain factors can make recusal appropriate.

Background

Vanderbilt arose from a trademark dispute between a pet food vendor and a Japanese restaurant chain over the use of the name 'Zuma'.

During proceedings in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC), Ms Vanderbilt, who did not have legal representation and was against both a silk and a junior instructed by solicitors, asked Recorder Campbell QC to recuse himself from deciding her summary judgment application on the grounds that he was a practising barrister in the same chambers as the lead barrister representing the respondents' Japanese restaurant chain. The judge fully disclosed this connection at the outset of the

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll