Court of Appeal

Published July 30, 2007

Steadman-Byrne v Amjad and Others

A clear manifestation of bias on the part of a tribunal should ordinarily be drawn to its attention immediately. Appellate courts tended not to look favourably on complaints of vitiating bias made only after the complainant had taken his chance on the outcome and found it unwelcome.

The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Sedley, Lady Justice Smith and Lord Justice Hughes) so observed on June 27, 2007 allowing an appeal by the defendant, Christopher Steadman-Byrne, from a decision of District Judge Jones in Manchester County Court on July 14, 2006 giving judgment for the claimants, Umar Amjad, Omar Subhani and Tauqir Ashraf, for personal injury arising from a road traffic collision.

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY, giving the judgment of the court, said the judge had called counsel into his chambers after the claimants had given evidence and before hearing the defendant.

He told counsel that he believed the claimants and noted that the defendant worked for the police and might have difficulty accepting that he was mistaken in his assertion that there were two rather than three people in the claimants’ car at the time of the collision.

Both the common law and the European Convention on Human Rights recognised the right to a tribunal free both of bias and of the objective appearance of bias, including a clear indication of a prematurely closed mind.

The parties had reached a compromise while the appeal stood adjourned, so there would be no order as to costs.

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