Bank of Ireland (UK) PLC v McKeever & McKeever

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from a protracted dispute initially heard by the Chancery Division of the High Court following a prior judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 22 December 2021. The Court of Appeal had allowed an earlier appeal, reversed the trial judge’s order, and remitted the case for a full retrial before the same trial judge, emphasizing the need for expeditious finality. The trial judge resumed active case management in May 2022. The appellant challenged interlocutory rulings made by the trial judge concerning discovery of documents and the judge’s refusal to recuse himself. There was also an issue regarding an adjournment of the scheduled trial date, which was resolved in the appellant’s favour by the trial judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to recuse himself on grounds of alleged apparent bias and judicial misconduct.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in his interlocutory ruling regarding discovery of documents.
3. Whether the trial judge erred in relation to the adjournment of the scheduled trial date.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The trial judge committed perjury by inaccurately recalling evidence concerning an inter-account transfer at the first trial.
• The judge acted with bias by attempting to support the Bank’s argument without evidential basis.
• The trial judge is unfit to hold judicial office due to alleged partiality against the appellant.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent’s legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court approached the recusal application by applying the doctrine of apparent bias, emphasizing judicial fairness and impartiality. It considered all relevant materials, including transcripts of hearings on 11 May, 23 June, and 3 October 2022, correspondence, affidavits, and the procedural history. The court noted the judge’s inaccurate recollection regarding evidence of an inter-account transfer but accepted the judge’s acknowledgment and apology for this error. The judge had not made any conclusive determinations against the appellant during case management and had managed discovery in a balanced and fair manner, imposing strict time limits on the Bank.

The court evaluated the situation from the standpoint of the hypothetical independent observer, who would consider the context of case management (not fact-finding), the passage of time, the judge’s professional obligations, and the judge’s open-mindedness to revisiting recusal at trial. The observer would find the judge’s conduct impartial, fair, and free from prejudice or bias. Allegations of perjury were dismissed as legally misconceived since the judge was not under oath and the claim lacked evidential weight.

Regarding the discovery ruling, the court found no error of law or abuse of discretion by the trial judge, who had handled the matter meticulously and fairly. The court recognized that appellate interference in interlocutory discovery rulings is rare and unwarranted here.

On the adjournment issue, the court noted that the trial judge had granted the adjournment sought by the appellant, rendering any appeal on this point moot due to the passage of time.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED all aspects of the appellant’s challenge to the trial judge’s interlocutory orders and refused leave to appeal.

The direct effect of this decision is that the trial judge’s rulings on recusal, discovery, and adjournment stand, allowing the case to proceed to trial under the existing case management framework. No new legal precedent was established by this ruling.