Report comment

@Anonymous 20 March 2018 08:27

I'm assuming you're referring to 'Dimes v Proprietors of Grand Junction Canal & others' (1852). This case was actually concerned with the appearance of bias, not with actual bias. Lord Campbell said: 'This will be a lesson to all inferior tribunals to take care not only that in their decrees they are not influenced by their personal interest, but to avoid the appearance of labouring under such an influence'.

It is the case that a judge holding a substantial shareholding in one party could give the appearance of bias and is undesirable. So is a judge being involved in a case where his daughter has done a mini-pupillage for one side and where one party is invited to private meetings where the case is discussed and where the judge's communication to the other side doesn't include some of what was discussed at the meeting.

Actual bias and the appearance of bias are indeed two separate concepts, although as we can see, the two can be confused. They may overlap and one may lead to the other, but they are both to be avoided. Justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done.