A High Court judge has refused a request to step aside from a statutory appeal concerning mortgage protection policies, finding that the appellant’s concern did not justify recusal in the circumstances.
John O’Connell, representing himself, argued that an earlier judgment by Mr Justice Tony O’Connor in separate proceedings had left him apprehensive that the judge had formed an adverse view of his personality. O’Connell pointed in particular to a passage in that 2018 judgment expressing scepticism about part of his claim for financial loss. He also cited an interaction during the trial about working while potentially claiming social welfare.
The respondent, the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman, submitted that the appeal would not require the judge to assess credibility. Its counsel also relied on the objective test for apparent bias: whether a reasonable person, informed of the relevant circumstances, would reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the case.
Justice O’Connor said he could not determine the full scope of the appeal at that stage, but assured the parties that he held no adverse view of O’Connell’s personality. He noted that the appeal had been listed once before and not reached, and that no other judge was available to hear the recusal application that day. He also referred to the need to prevent litigants influencing the composition of the court through an insubstantial objection.
The judge refused the recusal application. His decision addressed only whether he should hear the appeal; it did not determine the substantive statutory appeal or the underlying complaint about mortgage protection policies.