Radoslaw Kaleta, R (on the application of) v The Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman
[2024] EWHC 1038 (Admin)
Lorenzo Ramos v Nottinghamshire Women's Aid Limited & Anor
30 April 2024
[2024] EAT 69
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Mr. Ramos wanted a different judge to hear his case, but the judge already decided it. Mr. Ramos complained about the judge being late, giving him documents, and a previous unrelated complaint. The judge said no, the complaints were not good enough reasons, and Mr. Ramos was just being difficult.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Ramos applied for the recusal of His Honour Judge James Tayler after the judge had already determined Rule 3(10) applications.
- •The application was made after the judgment was finalized but before it was handed down.
- •Mr. Ramos cited the judge's lateness to the hearing, provision of two EAT authorities, and a previous complaint against the judge in 2022 as reasons for recusal.
- •The judge addressed each of Mr. Ramos's concerns in the judgment.
Legal Principles
A party cannot insist that another judge deal with a matter.
EAT Practice Direction 2023, Section 1.5.3
A judge cannot recuse themselves from a matter they have already heard, although there is a possibility of a judgement being altered or revoked prior to handing down and/or the order being sealed.
Judge's own reasoning
Outcomes
Recusal application refused.
The judge found no basis for recusal; the reasons cited by Mr. Ramos were deemed without merit and examples of vexatious behaviour.
Similar Cases
Michael Earl Wilson v John Forster Emmott
[2023] EWHC 2415 (KB)
Samer Alabboud Alhasan, R (on the application of) v Director of Legal Aid Casework & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1676 (Admin)
EB Pension Fund & Ors v Nicholas Froggatt
[2024] EWHC 2721 (Ch)
R (on the application of Kate Thomas) v Judicial Appointments Commission
[2024] EWCA Civ 665