England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)
(MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Wednesday 21 August 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE ROBERT WALKER: This is an application by Mr Barry O'Brien, who has appeared in person, for permission to appeal from an order of Sullivan J made in the Administrative Court on 26 April 2002. The judge, on Mr O'Brien's renewed application, refused him permission to apply for judicial review of a decision of District Judge Karet made in the Barnet County Court on 31 August 2001.
2. The matter arises out of a road traffic accident which occurred at about 6pm on 18 January 2000. The accident occurred at Junction Road in North London. Mr O'Brien's car, registration number G948 LGF, was in collision with a car, registration number T568 XAK, belonging to Challenger Group Holdings ("Challenger") and driven by Mr Daniel Stritter. Challenger's car suffered damage and Challenger brought a claim for damages in the Barnet County Court.
3. The claim was heard on 31 August 2001 by District Judge Karet. Challenger was legally represented and called two witnesses, Mr Stritter and Mr Alexis Ralphs, the driver of another car which was, at the time of the accident, close by and travelling in the same direction as Mr O'Brien. I need not go into the details of the evidence, but the general tenor of the claimant's evidence was that, on a busy road after dark and with a restricted view of the road ahead, Mr O'Brien had overtaken on the inside and had collided with Mr Stritter's car when it was stationary and waiting to turn right, possibly a little way over the line marking the single lane going in the opposite direction to Mr O'Brien and Mr Ralphs.
4. Mr O'Brien did not take any effective part in the hearing. He did not put any questions to Challenger's witnesses. He did not give evidence himself and he did not make any submissions as to the facts or the law. It would appear that he took that course because he formed the view that the district judge was biased against him. The outcome was that the district judge heard the case and gave judgment for Challenger for damages. The claim was for £1,415 and that was the sum awarded, although there is no copy of the order in the appeal bundle. The bundle also omits the grounds annexed to the judicial review claim form. In the absence of the stated grounds I must take them from the judgment of Sullivan J from which Mr O'Brien seeks to appeal. Sullivan J put it like this:

"The basis of the challenge to the District Judge's decision put by Mr O'Brien, who has appeared on his own behalf, is that the District Judge, he says, was biased in his attitude towards him. He says this on the basis, as I understand it, that before the proceedings started, counsel who was representing Mr Stritter asked the usher whether the judge was male or female. Then, when the proceedings got underway, it became apparent to Mr O'Brien that the judge was being very much swayed, he would say unduly swayed, by the advocacy of counsel on behalf of the claimant.

I am bound to say that it is quite impossible to see how those matters, shortly stated, and really that is all there is, could conceivably amount to any credible case of bias on the part of the judge. If one reads through the judgment, it is perfectly intelligible and readily understandable why the judge reached the conclusion he did, not lease because Mr O'Brien chose to remain silent, not to challenge any of the evidence led on behalf of the claimant and, indeed, not to give any evidence on his own behalf.

He says that he did that because he concluded that the District Judge was biased. But, as I have indicated, there is no conceivable basis for such an allegation."

5. In this court Mr O'Brien has made oral submissions and has made the following points. He has said that bias can be perceived as well as actual. That is undoubtedly correct, and all the importance recent decisions, to which I need not refer, have been concerned with "perceived" rather than with "actual" bias. Mr O'Brien has repeated that the district judge seemed to be impressed (and he says over impressed) by counsel. That adds nothing to the matter before Sullivan J. Mr O'Brien then took me to the district judge's judgment and pointed out a number of matters which he said showed that the district judge misunderstood the facts or came to the wrong conclusions about the facts. However, Mr O'Brien is really trying to relitigate a case which he decided not to fight. He cannot rely on the district judge's judgment as evidence of bias which had led Mr O'Brien to decide not to participate in the proceedings long before that judgment was given. Sullivan J was plainly right in saying that the application was hopeless.
6. I dismiss this application for permission to appeal.
Order: Application for permission to appeal refused.