Samer Alabboud Alhasan, R (on the application of) v Director of Legal Aid Casework & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1676 (Admin)
CD v MD
25 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 118 (Fam)
High Court
A father asked a judge to step down from his case, saying the judge secretly talked to others about it. The judge said those talks were about scheduling, not the case itself, and wasn't unfair. The other judge agreed and the first judge stayed on the case.
Key Facts
- •Father (CD) applied for the recusal of Mr Justice MacDonald in Hague Maintenance Convention proceedings.
- •Proceedings are long-running, dating back to 2019.
- •Father alleges apparent bias due to undisclosed ex-parte communications between the judge and third parties.
- •The communications involved discussions about the registration of a Colorado child support order, which the father challenges.
- •Father claims the judge failed to disclose these communications and adequately respond to his inquiries.
- •The judge denied recollection of the communications.
Legal Principles
Test for apparent bias involves a two-stage process: (1) ascertain all relevant circumstances; (2) determine if those circumstances would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude a real possibility of bias.
H (A child: recusal) [2023] EWCA Civ 860, Bubbles & Wine Ltd v Lusha [2018] EWCA Civ 468, Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67
Apparent bias means prejudice against one party for reasons unconnected with the case's merits. The court considered whether a fair trial was possible.
Flaherty v National Greyhound Racing Club Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 1117, Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No2) [2008] EWCA Civ 117, Bubbles and Wine, supra, Serafin v Malkiewicz [2020] UKSC 23
The entire proceedings must be considered when assessing allegations of unfair treatment or bias.
Singh v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 492
There's no blanket rule requiring judges to promptly notify parties of all administrative communications.
This case establishes this principle.
Outcomes
The application for recusal was dismissed.
The court found no evidence of apparent bias. The undisclosed communications were primarily administrative and did not concern the merits of the case. The judge's failure to disclose them, while potentially procedurally irregular, did not, in itself, demonstrate bias.