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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll