Howard J dismissed the plaintiff's application for recusal on apprehended bias grounds, holding that criticisms made during case management hearings and in prior published interlocutory reasons did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension that the trial judge might not bring an impartial mind to the trial. The Court emphasised that the fair-minded lay observer would understand the full context of case management exchanges, including that a judge may express measured displeasure at the conduct of proceedings, and that interlocutory rulings and criticisms of a party's compliance with timetabling orders do not logically connect to pre-judgment of the substantive merits.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.