The High Court has refused an application by a woman to have the judge removed from her trial over an agreement concerning a nursing home business. Mr Justice David Keane ruled on 28 April 2015 that none of the three grounds advanced established a basis for recusal.
The trial began on 21 April 2015. The plaintiff seeks to rescind an agreement made with her husband on 2 December 2004, under which she relinquished her share in the business in exchange for €350,000. She alleges the agreement resulted from misrepresentation, undue influence or duress, or was an unconscionable bargain. Her husband admitted the agreement but denied it was procured inequitably and disputed that she lacked independent legal advice. Those claims have not been decided in this ruling.
The recusal application followed exchanges during the plaintiff’s evidence. Her counsel argued that the judge had wrongly attributed counsel’s description of the plaintiff’s mother-in-law to the plaintiff, had conveyed disbelief in the plaintiff’s evidence, and had shown scepticism about her case concerning the business’s debts. The judge rejected those characterisations. He said the exchange about the mother-in-law arose while the court was addressing concerns about family disputes being aired in open court, and that the plaintiff remained entitled to present her case subject to the rules of evidence.
On the debts issue, the judge said the exchange occurred during an objection by the defendant’s counsel to a question about a letter concerning the business’s financial position. He said he had been trying to understand how the question related to the letter, and had not expressed a concluded view on the merits. The defendant’s counsel did not press the objection, and the judge did not have to rule on it.
Applying the objective test of whether a reasonable person would apprehend that the plaintiff could not receive a fair hearing from an impartial judge, Mr Justice Keane rejected all three grounds. He also rejected the allegation that his questions, demeanour or use of a mobile phone conveyed that he had prejudged the case. He refused the recusal application. The ruling did not determine the underlying dispute over the agreement.