The High Court has refused an application to prevent judges who attended or voted at the Judicial Council meeting that adopted the Personal Injuries Guidelines from hearing a judicial review challenge to them.
Mr Justice Charles Meenan delivered the ruling on 17 February 2022. He said he had attended and voted at the 6 March 2021 meeting. The applicant sought an order assigning another judge to the proceedings, excluding judges who had participated in adopting the guidelines or in specified related decisions.
The judicial review seeks, among other reliefs, a declaration that the Judicial Council acted outside its powers when it adopted the guidelines. A separate motion to amend the applicant’s statement of grounds had not been determined. The proposed additional grounds were opened to the court during the recusal application; the ruling did not decide that amendment motion or the underlying challenge to the guidelines.
The applicant submitted that a reasonable observer could think a judge who voted on the guidelines might already have formed a view on their lawfulness, having seen documents and heard colleagues’ submissions. Ireland and the Attorney General opposed recusal. The Personal Injuries Assessment Board and Judicial Council took a neutral position.
Justice Meenan applied the objective test of whether a reasonable and fair-minded observer, aware of the relevant circumstances, would apprehend a risk that the judge would not be impartial. He noted that every judge is a Judicial Council member by statute and that the Council was legally required to adopt the guidelines within a specified timeframe. He also referred to the statutory provision that the Act did not interfere with courts’ functions or judges’ judicial functions.
The judge concluded that the Council’s adoption of the guidelines was not a decision on their legality, which was a matter for the courts. Any views a judge may have held when voting did not prevent that judge from deciding the legal challenge fairly and impartially. He held that the applicant had not met the recusal test and refused the relief sought. The substantive judicial review remained unresolved by this ruling.