18. Further points distilled from the case law by Sir Terence
Etherton in Resolution Chemicals Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S [2013]
EWCA Civ 1515; [2014] 1 WLR 1943, at para 35, are the following:
(1)
The fair-minded and informed observer is not unduly
sensitive or suspicious, but neither is he or she complacent: Lawal
v Northern Spirit Ltd [2003] UKHL 35; [2003] ICR 856, para 14 (Lord
Steyn).
(2) The facts and context are critical, with each case turning on
“an intense focus on the essential facts of the case”: Helow v
Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 62;
[2008] 1 WLR 2416, para 2 (Lord Hope).
(3) If the test of apparent bias is satisfied, the judge is
automatically disqualified from hearing the case and
considerations of inconvenience, cost and delay are irrelevant:
Man O' War Station Ltd v Auckland City Council (formerly Waiheke
County Council) [2002] UKPC 28, para 11 (Lord Steyn).
19.
In Helow v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Lord Hope observed that the fair-minded and informed observer
is not to be confused with the person raising the complaint of
apparent bias and that the test ensures that there is this measure
of detachment: [2008] UKHL 62; [2008] 1 WLR 2416, para 2; and
see also Almazeedi v Penner [2018] UKPC 3, para 20. In the
Resolution Chemicals case Sir Terence Etherton also pointed out
that, if the legal test is not satisfied, then the objection to the judge
must fail, even if that leaves the applicant dissatisfied and bearing
a sense that justice will not or may not be done: [2013] EWCA Civ
1515; [2014] 1 WLR 1943, para 40. (All emphasis added)
The relevant circumstances
21.
The approach of a court considering an allegation of bias was described
by Warner JA in Panday v Virgil as follows at paragraph 60.
60) The first stage was to ascertain all the circumstances which had
a bearing on the allegation of bias by making an objective and
impartial appraisal of the evidence. It was important to identify
with precision those facts on which the suggestion of bias can be
based.
10