The conduct of a High Court judge best known for embedding a "code" into his ruling on a copyright case involving The Da Vinci Code has been referred to the Office for Judicial Complaints after his handling of another case was strongly criticised by senior judges.

Earlier this month, Mr Justice Peter Smith was taken to task by judges from the Court of Appeal, headed by Master of the Rolls Sir Anthony Clarke, for the “intemperate” way in which he dealt with an application for him to stand down from hearing a case.

They also said it was “wholly inappropriate” for the judge to cross-examine a witness and that he “demonstrated animosity” towards a firm of solicitors and its partners. The judge should have recused himself rather than insist on hearing the case, the appeal judges said.

Now, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, has referred the judge’s conduct to the Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC). The Lord Chancellor was consulted and agreed to the referral.

Under regulations laid down last year, the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor can refer for investigation by the OJC any matter where the conduct of a judicial office-holder may warrant disciplinary proceedings.

Mr Justice Peter Smith remained defiant after the Court of Appeal handed down its ruling and issued a statement saying he would not be standing down as he had not been told the decision.

He said: “As no one in the Court of Appeal or anyone else in the Ministry of Justice has yet actually told me I have been removed (although I discerned this when I prepared to sit on Tuesday but nobody turned up) and no one has given me any reasons for my removal, I am unable to comment save to say that I will not be resigning.

“When I am informed officially of the decision and the reasons, I will consider what - if anything - I need to do or say then.”

The case arose after the judge had been in discussion with a law firm over a possible job – and been turned down to his “extreme” disappointment. An acrimonious exchange of e-mails between the judge and the law firm, Addleshaw Goddard, ensued, the Appeal Court was told. The judge described the e-mails as “insulting” and “condescending”.

The judge then found himself due to try a case last month involving trustees, one of whom – Paul Howell – was a partner with Addleshaw Goddard. Mr Howell then applied for the judge to stand down.

The appeal judges found that Mr Justice Peter Smith had got “somewhat carried away” in his treatment of the barrister, Peter Crampin, QC, who made the application to the judge. Mr Justice Peter Smith had told Mr Crampin that his remarks to the judge “could have professional consequences”.

It had also been “wholly inappropriate” for Mr Justice Peter Smith to cross-examine a witness from the solicitors and he “demonstrated animosity” towards the firm and its partners, the appeal judges said. Mr Crampin had behaved responsibly throughout and was completely justified in making the application, they added.

Giving judgment, Sir Anthony said that the case was “most unusual”. The claimants had said it was a case of “apparent bias” where a judge had displayed personal animosity towards one of the parties, he said. The guide to judicial conduct issued by the Judges’ Council indicated that a current or recent business association with a party usually meant that a judge should not sit on a case, he said.

He then referred to the exchange of e-mails over unsuccessful negotiations for Mr Justice Peter Smith to join the firm. In one e-mail, the judge pressed a partner, Simon Twigden, for a decision. Mr Twigden replied, citing “financial reasons” for not “taking matters any further”.

The judge responded, citing “the considerable advantages of being associated with someone like himself and his “considerable disappointment” at not being offered a job.

Sir Anthony said that the exchanges “clearly show the judge was upset” and also “animosity” towards Mr Twigden and the firm of solicitors. “I can understand their real concern when they learnt that the judge was to hear their own application.”

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• Linklaters trounces rivals as UK's biggest firm
• Clifford Chance profits plunge 37 per cent
• Casual drinkers hit by spread of 'dry' zones