Ladybill Limited v Sheffield Magistrates’ Court

A judge is not disqualified merely because he has previously made adverse findings against a party or a related company. Recusal may nevertheless be required where subsequent conduct gives the appearance that the judge has become personally invested in defending the earlier decision.

The test is whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. An inferior court may provide information to a reviewing court, but unnecessary advocacy defending its decision may contribute to apparent bias. The assessment is fact-sensitive and focuses on the cumulative effect of the judge’s conduct, comments and reasons.

Ladybill Limited sought judicial review of District Judge Spruce’s refusal on 23 May 2024 to recuse himself from non-domestic rates proceedings brought against it by Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.

The judge had previously decided related proceedings involving Emeraldshaw Limited, another company within the same group, making strongly adverse findings about an alleged rates avoidance scheme. While Emeraldshaw’s judicial review remained pending, the judge completed the acknowledgment of service for that challenge and added material defending the soundness of his judgment. He also made comments during Ladybill’s recusal application and gave robust reasons for refusing it.

The central issue was whether the cumulative circumstances created a real possibility of apparent bias.

1. Outcome. The claim succeeded. The refusal to recuse was quashed and the judge was recused from sitting on the Ladybill claim.
2. Apparent bias. The applicable test was whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would consider that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased: [2002] 2 A.C. 357, para 102. The observer is fair-minded and informed, reserves judgment until both sides have been understood, and is neither unduly suspicious nor complacent: [2008] UKHL 662, para 2.
3. Previous adverse findings. The judge was entitled to hear the Ladybill proceedings notwithstanding his trenchant findings in the related Emeraldshaw case. A judge’s previous decisions against a litigant do not generally require recusal, although the position may differ where the judge has expressed a final, concluded view on the same issue: [2017] EWCA Civ 2133, para 29.
4. Role of the lower court in judicial review. There was no overarching convention requiring an inferior court always to remain neutral. Depending on the circumstances, it may provide information assisting the reviewing court. The Review of Justices Decisions Act 1872, section two, and Form N462 illustrated that possibility. However, the judge’s use of the acknowledgment of service form to make unnecessary submissions or advocacy defending his judgment went beyond useful assistance.
5. Cumulative assessment. The judge’s advocacy in the acknowledgment of service, comments during the recusal hearing, and reasons for refusing recusal could lead the fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that he might be influenced by an extraneous desire to validate his earlier decision. The judge had therefore gone too far in defending the earlier judgment, creating a real possibility that he would struggle to approach the later related case with a sufficiently open mind.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The judicial review claim was brought against the Magistrates’ Court’s refusal of recusal. Permission was granted by a single judge on 8 October 2024. The refusal was quashed and the judge was recused.