Britain’s most senior judge took the unprecedented step of initiating disciplinary action against one of his own High Court judges last night.

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the Lord Chief Justice, has referred Mr Justice Peter Smith to the Office for Judicial Complaints, with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor.

The move comes after Mr Justice Peter Smith was severely castigated recently for failing to step down from a case involving a law firm towards which he had shown “undoubted animosity”.

The judge had been in unsuccessful negotiations with Addleshaw Goddard, the 15th-largest law firm in Britain with almost 600 solicitors, and a partner in the case who came before the judge to be tried asked that he step down.

Watchdog received more than 300 complaints about judges

Complaints over judges' conduct and appointments last year were twice as high as expected

• Da Vinci judge in the dock after reprimand

The Court of Appeal ruled that the judge had been “intemperate” and his behaviour “wholly inappropriate”, saying that the application that he stand aside was “entirely justified”.

But Mr Justice Peter Smith, 55, then further astounded judicial colleagues by issuing a statement refusing to resign or stand aside because, he said, he had not been informed of the Court of Appeal decision. He was previously in the news when he tried The Da Vinci Code case and inserted his own code in the judgment.

Yesterday’s move by the Lord Chief Justice is a first step towards possible disciplinary proceedings against the judge. It could lead to a reprimand or even to a recommendation that Parliament be asked to remove him — the only way that a High Court judge can be dismissed.

It is the first time that the Lord Chief Justice has referred such a senior judge to the Office for Judicial Complaints, which was set up last year under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.

Last year he referred the case of the two immigration judges who were caught up in the so-called “chilli hot stuff” blackmail trial. Two judges were embroiled in a complex love triangle involving a Brazilian cleaner whom they both employed.

The office is still considering whether to take the matter further. One of the judges, Judge J — still anonymous as a victim of blackmail — has retired early on medical grounds. The other, Judge Mohammed Ilyas Khan, is not sitting but is on full pay.

Anyone can lodge a complaint with the office. One has been lodged by a group of parents against another High Court judge, Mr Justice Davis, over an alleged conflict of interest in the funding of MMR vaccine litigation.

A spokesman for the office said yesterday that it would look into the case and decide whether a nominated judge should investigate. The Lord Chief Justice would decide what action should be taken on the basis of that inquiry.

Possible options include a reprimand, sending a judge on a training course or — at the most severe end of the spectrum — the Lord Chancellor could move an address to both Houses of Parliament for his removal.

Under regulations laid down in 2006, the Lord Chief Justice and Jack Straw, the Lord Chancellor, can refer for investigation any matter where the conduct of a judicial office holder may warrant disciplinary proceedings.

They can do this irrespective of whether there has been any complaint from others.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure