Abbotsley Limited & Anor v Pheasantland Limited & Ors

An application for recusal must be treated as a distinct preliminary issue where apparent bias is alleged. The court must identify the circumstances bearing on the allegation and ask whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. Delay, administrative errors, adverse case-management decisions and a party’s perception of unfairness do not, without more, establish apparent bias. Recusal applications must be made promptly. An adjournment is governed by the overriding objective, including fairness, proportionality, expedition and the proper allocation of limited court resources. A transfer should be assessed by reference to the case’s connection with the proposed court and the likely effect on delay.

The claimants in consolidated proceedings applied for the judge to recuse herself, for transfer of the proceedings to the Central London County Court, and for an adjournment of the forthcoming trial. The applications followed delays in fixing the trial date and listing a case management conference, together with complaints about earlier hearings, case-management decisions and correspondence concerning an early neutral evaluation.

The court also considered whether the trial could fairly proceed on the existing date. The central issues were whether the recusal application disclosed apparent bias, whether the proceedings had a sufficient connection with Central London to justify transfer, and whether the overriding objective required an adjournment.

1. Recusal. The recusal application was a distinct preliminary matter and was determined before the applications to transfer and adjourn. Disqualification for apparent bias is not discretionary. The court must assess all relevant circumstances from the standpoint of a fair-minded and informed observer and determine whether there was a real possibility of bias, applying AWG Group Ltd v Morrison [2006] EWCA Civ 6, Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67 and Bubbles & Wine Ltd v Lusha [2018] EWCA Civ 468.
2. The application was out of time. Recusal applications should be made as soon as reasonably practicable, and inordinate and unexplained delay may justify dismissal. The claimants’ delay of many months was a sufficient reason to dismiss the application. In any event, the complaints did not satisfy the apparent-bias test. Delays by court staff, administrative mistakes, adverse decisions, alleged disparity of treatment and the applicant’s subjective perception of unfairness did not establish a real possibility of bias. Allegations of bias must not be used for forum shopping.
3. The judge had not read the correspondence concerning the early neutral evaluation. Even if it had been read, it contained nothing capable of giving rise to apparent bias. The recusal application was dismissed as totally without merit. The court also noted that case-management orders pending determination of recusal should generally be avoided save in exceptional circumstances, applying Mireskandari v Law Society [2009] EWCA Civ 864.
4. Transfer. Transfer to Central London was refused. The relevant connections were with the Peterborough region: the parties, witnesses, property and proposed site visit were located there. Transfer would cause further delay and was contrary to the parties’ interests.
5. Adjournment. The overriding objective required the court to deal with the consolidated claims justly, proportionately and expeditiously, while allocating an appropriate share of limited court resources. Applying the principles in Boyd & Hutchinson (A Firm) v Foenander [2003] EWCA Civ 1516 and Fitzroy Robinson Limited v Mentomore Towers Limited [2009] EWHC 2070 (TCC), the court concluded that a fair trial could not take place on 27 February 2025. The trial was adjourned and relisted from 29 April to 23 May 2025, with further directions made for disclosure, witness statements and trial bundles.