Lorenzo Ramos v Nottinghamshire Women's Aid Limited & Anor

A judge may determine an arguable recusal application made after the hearing but before judgment is handed down or the order sealed, since there may be scope to alter or revoke the judgment before those steps occur.

Allegations of apparent bias must disclose a proper basis for recusal. A short delay caused by considering late submissions, the provision of relevant authorities, a previous complaint about the judge, and ordinary listing arrangements did not, separately or cumulatively, establish such a basis.

The appellant applied on 29 April 2024 for His Honour Judge Tayler to recuse himself from a hearing held on 24 April 2024 concerning the appellant’s Rule 3(10) applications. The application was made after the substantive order and judgment had been finalised, but before they were handed down and sealed.

The appellant relied on the judge’s late arrival at the hearing, the provision of two EAT authorities, a complaint made about the judge in 2022, and an assertion that the appeal had been listed before that judge at the judge’s request. The central issue was whether those matters required recusal.

1. Application refused. Although a judge cannot ordinarily recuse himself from a matter already heard, the judge concluded that an application made before hand-down and sealing could still be determined. There was a possibility that a judgment might be altered or revoked before those events. The appellant’s assertion was arguable and was therefore considered.

2. There was no basis for recusal. The delay in starting the hearing arose because the judge considered late written submissions and checked that authorities sent to the appellant had been received. The appellant sought no additional time when the hearing resumed. That delay did not objectively support recusal.

3. The judge had supplied two EAT authorities because they were relevant to the Rule 3(10) applications. The appellant did not seek further time or an explanation of their relevance. Their provision did not show bias.

4. The earlier judicial-conduct complaint concerned a sift decision in a different appeal. The judge had not recalled the matter until checking records after the recusal allegation was raised. The complaint and the ordinary listing of the appeal provided no basis for recusal.

5. The substantive Rule 3(10) order and judgment remained exactly as finalised before the recusal application. The application was described as totally without merit and as further vexatious conduct.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Recusal application made after the hearing of the appellant’s Rule 3(10) applications and before hand-down. Refused in [2024] EAT 69.