Dobbs v Triodos Bank NV

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant has made three preliminary applications at the outset of his appeal hearing. The appeal concerns an order dated 26 March 2002 made by HHJ Havelock-Allan QC, which contains two declarations. The appellant challenges this order and seeks to appeal it. Prior related proceedings include an application for permission to appeal that was refused. The appellant has also initiated proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights seeking legal aid from the United Kingdom Government.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the appeal proceedings should be stayed pending the outcome of the appellant's application for legal aid before the European Court of Human Rights.
2. Whether the court or any of its members should recuse themselves on grounds of alleged partiality due to the appellant’s criticisms of the judiciary.
3. Whether the court should indicate a stay of execution on any judgment should the appeal be dismissed.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The appellant argues that refusal of legal aid places him at a serious disadvantage as a litigant in person, resulting in inequality of arms compared to the respondent represented by counsel.
• He asserts that the judiciary, including members of this court, are biased against unrepresented litigants and favour professional advocates, which undermines impartiality.
• The appellant requests a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of his Strasbourg application and a general stay based on alleged judicial partiality.
• He seeks an indication that any judgment against him would be subject to a stay of execution if the appeal is dismissed.

Court's Response to Applications

• The court rejected the application for a stay pending the Strasbourg proceedings, concluding it can fairly determine the appeal despite the appellant’s unrepresented status.
• The court refused to recuse any judge, emphasizing that criticism alone does not warrant recusal and that allowing recusal on such grounds would enable litigants to manipulate the judicial process.
• The court declined to indicate a stay of execution at this stage, noting that such a decision is premature and can be reconsidered if necessary after judgment on the appeal.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged that it now has a better understanding of the complexity of the issues than the court did during the previous application for a stay in March 2005. It considered whether it could administer justice fairly given the appellant's unrepresented status and concluded it could, relying in part on the respondent’s counsel to assist with legal authorities. Regarding recusal, the court reasoned that allowing judges to step aside simply because they have been criticised would undermine the judicial process and allow litigants to select judges by making unfounded complaints. The court found no valid reason to recuse any member. On the request for a stay of execution, the court held that this was a contingent issue dependent on the outcome of the appeal and the nature of subsequent orders, thus not ripe for decision at this stage.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED all three applications made by the appellant:

• The application to stay the appeal pending the Strasbourg proceedings was denied.
• The application for judicial recusal based on alleged bias was denied.
• The application for an indicative stay of execution on any judgment was deferred and may be renewed if necessary after the appeal decision.

The direct effect is that the appeal will proceed without delay or recusal, and no immediate stay of execution will be granted. The court’s decision does not establish new precedent but affirms established principles regarding judicial impartiality and procedural fairness in appeals involving unrepresented litigants.