The High Court has refused Leslie Buckley’s application to revoke the appointment of inspectors investigating the affairs of Independent News and Media plc, ruling that alleged errors in their draft statements could not establish objective bias.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons delivered the judgment on 15 February 2021. The inspectors had been appointed in September 2018 under section 748 of the Companies Act 2014. Mr Buckley, a former director and chairman of the company, brought the revocation application after receiving five draft statements circulated by the inspectors in December 2019 and February 2020.
Buckley alleged that the drafts repeatedly misstated or misrepresented evidence in a way that strengthened allegations against him and diminished material supporting his position. He did not allege actual bias or that the inspectors had reached a fixed conclusion. The inspectors submitted that the application should be dismissed at the outset.
The drafts were circulated to give interested parties an opportunity to correct or supplement the inspectors’ understanding. They stated that the inspectors had reached no conclusions on disputed evidence or the matters referred to them by the High Court. After receiving submissions from interested parties, the inspectors said they intended to issue revised drafts following consideration of those comments and the completion of oral evidence, including cross-examination.
Buckley’s application asked the court to infer bias from what he characterised as a pattern of errors in the drafts. Justice Simons held that Supreme Court decisions, including *O’Callaghan v Mahon*, did not permit objective bias to be inferred from legal or other errors within a decision-making process without an external factor supporting that inference. He found no plausible reason advanced for the inspectors to bear ill will towards Buckley.
The judge also declined to parse the draft statements in detail. Doing so would require the court to assess evidence, transcripts and credibility questions that belonged to the inspectors’ inquiry, which was still under way. The court ruled that Buckley’s application was irreconcilable with the cited case law and refused it.
The judgment did not make findings on the underlying allegations against Buckley or determine the inspectors’ eventual conclusions. On costs, the judge noted that the default position was that the successful party could recover costs, subject to assessment if not agreed. Any party seeking a different costs order was directed to file written submissions by 1 March 2021.