A High Court judge has declined to recuse himself from proceedings between Eugenie Houston and Wendy Doyle, ruling that his inclusion as a defendant in a separate action brought by Houston did not establish a reasonable apprehension that he could not hear the matter impartially.
Mr Justice Liam Kennedy delivered the judgment on 30 January 2025. He considered Houston’s oral recusal applications of 6 December 2024 and 21 January 2025. He also declined to pause the pending applications while any appeal against his recusal decision was pursued.
The dispute forms part of lengthy litigation that began with Houston’s defamation claim against Doyle. The judgment says a consent order in that case awarded no damages and ordered Houston to pay costs. Doyle later registered judgment mortgages against Houston’s property and obtained an order for possession in 2022. After the property was taken into possession by the county registrar or sheriff, Houston re-entered it, according to the judgment. Doyle’s applications concerning possession and enforcement remain part of the wider proceedings.
Kennedy J had previously rejected a recusal request in 2023. At a hearing in November 2024, Houston raised concerns about him but initially said she was not making an application. She later pursued an oral application. The judge rejected it on 6 December, finding no proper basis to step aside.
On 17 January 2025, Houston issued separate High Court proceedings naming 16 defendants, including Kennedy J, Doyle and members of the legal profession, as well as State bodies and seven judges. At the next hearing, Houston argued that the judge’s inclusion as a defendant meant he could not be seen as impartial. The judge said it was for another court to determine the merits of that separate claim. He noted that its endorsement did not clearly identify the basis for the claim against him, and that no statement of claim had yet been served.
Applying the objective test for apparent bias, Kennedy J concluded that the circumstances did not give a reasonable observer grounds to doubt his impartiality. He also decided not to recuse himself as a matter of discretion, citing the risk that recusal based simply on being named in proceedings could delay cases or allow litigants to influence which judge hears them.
The ruling did not determine the merits of the separate action or the pending applications between Houston and Doyle. Kennedy J directed that those applications continue to progress, with several listed for mention or hearing on 12 February 2025, subject to the directions and filing deadlines set out in the judgment.