The Court of Appeal has dismissed Vehicle Tech Limited’s appeal against High Court decisions refusing to recuse a judge and to adjourn a judicial review hearing pending an appeal. It found no objective basis for apprehending bias and upheld the dismissal of the judicial review with costs to the respondents.
The appeal concerned events on 19 December 2017. The High Court judge refused Vehicle Tech’s application for recusal, finding that the complaints about his conduct at an earlier hearing did not establish bias. The company’s counsel then sought an adjournment while appealing that refusal. The judge declined, saying the proceedings should continue and that the right to appeal was not being interfered with.
Vehicle Tech’s counsel and junior counsel then said they would not proceed before that judge. The High Court struck out the judicial review and awarded the respondents their costs, including reserved costs and costs attributable to an intended contempt motion. The Court of Appeal said the recusal application had been rightly refused and found no basis to interfere with the dismissal or costs order.
The dispute arose from a judicial review concerning a VAT assessment and frozen company funds. Vehicle Tech had previously secured a 2010 High Court declaration that a statutory provision used to freeze its accounts was unconstitutional. The present proceedings challenged later freezing orders, the assessment and related enforcement measures.
The Court of Appeal said an intended motion seeking attachment and committal for alleged breaches of court orders was never properly before the High Court. The document presented as a notice of motion was not properly addressed or served as such, and no properly constituted motion was filed despite leave being given. The appeal court made no determination on the merits of the alleged contempt. It said the High Court therefore could make no order on that motion’s merits or adjournment, but upheld the costs award that included costs attributed to it.
The appeal court rejected claims that the High Court judge had bullied counsel, displayed hostility, accused the legal team of lying, or thrown a letter back at counsel. It said the hearing transcript did not support those claims. It also found the adjournment explanation legally questionable in light of correspondence indicating the solicitor had come on record months before the hearing, and said the judge was entitled to question the inconsistency.
The court’s provisional view was that the respondents should receive the costs of the appeal. Vehicle Tech was given 14 days to seek a brief supplemental hearing on costs; otherwise, an order in those terms would be made.