Offshore Litigation

Blog

Offshore Litigation

Contributors

Jonathan Addo
Jonathan Addo
  • Jonathan Addo

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jeremy Child
Jeremy Child
  • Jeremy Child

  • Partner
  • London
Julie Engwirda
Julie Engwirda
  • Julie Engwirda

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Peter Ferrer
Peter Ferrer
  • Peter Ferrer

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Claire Goldstein
Claire Goldstein
  • Claire Goldstein

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Hazel-Ann Hannaway
Hazel-Ann Hannaway
  • Hazel-Ann Hannaway

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Nick Hoffman
Nick Hoffman
  • Nick Hoffman

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Andrew Johnstone
Andrew Johnstone
  • Andrew Johnstone

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Paula Kay
Paula Kay
  • Paula Kay

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Phillip Kite
Phillip Kite
  • Phillip Kite

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Vicky Lord
Vicky Lord
  • Vicky Lord

  • Partner
  • Shanghai
Paul Madden
Paul Madden
  • Paul Madden

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Henry Mander
Henry Mander
  • Henry Mander

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Ian Mann
Ian Mann
  • Ian Mann

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
William Peake
William Peake
  • William Peake

  • Partner
  • London
Lorinda Peasland
Lorinda Peasland
  • Lorinda Peasland

  • Consultant
  • Hong Kong
Chai Ridgers
Chai Ridgers
  • Chai Ridgers

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Nicola Roberts
Nicola Roberts
  • Nicola Roberts

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
  • Singapore
Paul Smith
Paul Smith
  • Paul Smith

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Andrew Thorp
Andrew Thorp
  • Andrew Thorp

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jessica Williams
Jessica Williams
  • Jessica Williams

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Jayson Wood
Jayson Wood
  • Jayson Wood

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands

Judicial Independence: A Welcome Clarification

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the Committee) recently provided a welcome clarification in relation to the independence of judges.

The decision came in an appeal in the matter of Almazeedi v Penner & Another – a long-running dispute between the Cayman-registered BTU Power Company (BTU) and its predominantly Qatari shareholders where BTU had been wound up by an order made by Justice Cresswell.

In a 4-1 ruling the Committee held “with some reluctance” that Justice Cresswell would have been regarded by a fair-minded observer as “unsuitable to hear proceedings” in a case in the Financial Services Division (FSD) of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands. It was absolutely clear that there was no suggestion of actual bias on the part of Justice Cresswell and the Committee viewed the case as an unusual one.

Lord Sumption, dissenting, noted that the Judge “is not alleged to have done anything which could raise doubts about his independence”. He also highlighted the current reality of a retired commonwealth judge sitting on an occasional basis in other commonwealth jurisdictions and tribunals of international civil jurisdictions.

The Committee upheld a challenge made solely on the ground of an alleged lack of independence due to “apparent bias”, i.e. that a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased.

The decision of the Committee reinforces some key principles in relation to the independence of judges. It is clear that the Committee were heavily guided by the constitutional right of a litigant to an independent and impartial tribunal. The ongoing policing and protection of that right is to be welcomed.

 

Leave A Comment