- Considered — H (A Child) (Recusal), Re 2023-07-24
“… 1 WLR 2528, per Sir Anthony Clarke MR at paragraph 53; Bubbles and Wine, supra, per Leggatt LJ at paragraph 17. As Lord Wilson observed in Serafin v Malkiewicz[2020] UKSC 23, [2020] 1 WLR 2455 at paragraph 39, this definition of bias is “quite narrow”. For that reason, like Lewison LJ, whose judgment I have read, I consider it pref…”
- Cited — H (A Child) (Recusal), Re 2023-07-24
“…ias” is defined in that narrow way, I find it difficult to see how it can plausibly be said that the judge in this case was biased. But in Serafin v Malkiewicz [2020] UKSC 23, [2020] 1 WLR 2455 at [39] the Supreme Court refrained from endorsing that definition, merely assuming it to be correct. In fact that case was decided, not on …”
- Considered — K and L (Children: Fairness of Hearing) 2023-06-20
“…en extensively considered in the case law in recent years – see in particular, regarding unfairness, Re G (A Child) [2015] EWCA Civ 834 andSerafin v Malkiewicz [2020] UKSC 23, and, regarding bias, Resolution Chemicals Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S [2013] EWCA Civ 1515, Bubbles & Wine Ltd v Lusha [2018] EWCA Civ 468 and Re AZ (A Child) (Recus…”
- Cited — P (A Child: Fair Hearing) 2023-02-28
“…reflected in the ECHR, that a legally valid decision can only spring from a fair hearing. If a hearing is unfair, a judgment cannot stand: Serafin v Malkiewicz [2020] UKSC 23, [2020] 1 WLR 2455 at [49].…”
- Cited — Gary James Keane v David Sargen & Ors 2023-02-15
“…The Courts have repeatedly warned of the dangers of judges intervening when witnesses are giving evidence. In Serafin v Malkiewicz [2020] UKSC 23, [2020] 1 WLR 2455, Lord Wilson (with whom Lord Reed, Lord Briggs, Lady Arden and Lord Kitchin agreed) noted at paragraph 40 that “[t]he leading authority on i…”
- Cited — Rachel Riley v Laura Murray 2022-08-11
“…ether or not there is ambiguity and uncertainty …” I note that the Supreme Court took that approach when construing s 4 of the 2013 Act in Serafin v Malkiewicz [2020] UKSC 23, [2020] 1 WLR 2455 [58], [66] (Lord Wilson). The Notes in this case militate against Mr McCormick’s argument for the reasons given in Burki and by the Judge in…”