This decision is made by Lord Justice Coulson, btw...
submissions.. that the PO’s strike-out application [which was rejected] arose because the PO wished to adduce extensive factual evidence in their
favour, but objected to any evidence to the contrary from the SPMs [Subpostmasters]...
any recusal application is whether, when looking at Judgment 3 [the Common Issues trial judgment] as a whole, a fair-minded observer would conclude that...
outcome of the sub-trial was irrelevant to the recusal application, and that what mattered were individual sentences, scattered through Judgment 3...
that many of the phrases or sentences upon which the recusal application is based are taken wholly out of context by the PO. I agree with that conclusion."
example, it is not a finding of fact, or it is an observation based on the PO’s own evidence."
passages relied on gave rise to a real possibility that the judge was biased by considering those passages in full and in context. That is what being “fair-minded'’ requires...
arguments made to the judge, endeavour to present the sub-trial as a clearly-defined, simple set of issues concerned with the construction of contract terms,
where factual disputes were few and far between...
that is a significant misrepresentation, not only of the issues themselves, but
also of the way in which the PO itself ran its case before the judge. It raised factual disputes at every turn."
appeal is without substance...
judgment, the judge may have strayed beyond the strict scope of a particular issue, out of thousands in dispute, is, in one sense, neither here nor there. It is quite capable of correction at any subsequent sub-trial."
construction (as explained above, it emphatically was not);
2) that issues of factual matrix, credit and agency did not require findings of fact (that was a
matter for the judge and he decided that they did) ; and...
the sub-trial was very different to the one which it actually advanced (the rewriting point). In my view, these paragraphs are not a proper basis for an appeal, let alone a recusal application."
Oh wait. There’s more.
on some of the lead claimants as “confused” which was an entirely accurate summary, the consequences of which the judge dealt with in a way that was
generous to the PO."
without dealing with the timing and manner in which the recusal application was made."
mirrored in the way that this appeal has been pursued, can be seen in the continually changing nature of the PO’s arguments."
for permission to appeal have had the effect of delaying the conclusion of the
critical Horizon sub-trial….
have led to the collapse of that sub-trial altogether. Although I can reach no concluded view on the matter, I can at least understand why the SPMs originally submitted on 21 March that that was its purpose."