On 7th November 2024 the day before the scheduled taxation hearing in these proceedings the Defendant filed a Motion for Recusal (the Motion) against me the Registrar/Taxing officer. The Motion was not supported by an affidavit. The Defendant sought the following relief:
1. That the named Registrar Mr. Narendra Lalbeharry do give immediate disclosure to all the parties, in writing ahead of any recusal hearing of all the full details of his history with and relations to those persons natural and or corporate and organisations identified within the subject affidavits in the subject appeals and in comportment with binding precedent within this territory all of which precedent stems from the hallmark UK case of In the Matter of Resolution Chemicals Ltd vs H. Lundbeck A/S [2013] EWCA Civ 1515
2. That the named Registrar do hereby recuse himself from these matters - both as to CL- 38/24 and also its related main action CL- 151/ of 2022 and generally on all matters involving this Plaintiff and all such matters personally involving or being represented by Attorney Beryn Duncanson
3. That the costs of this application be costs to the applicant should the opposing parties resist the recusal or otherwise in the cause.
The Applicant filed an affidavit in support on the 15th of November 2024, which said affidavit exhibited other affidavits. The crux of the matters deposed in the affidavit relate to the performance of my functions as Registrar and allege as follows;
a. That I have failed to stamp/file documents in a timely manner and that I continue to omit listing critical applications such as a Motion for Conditional Leave to appeal to the Privy Council;
b. That I refused to accept service of an Originating Motion suing a Judge of the Supreme Court;
c. That by action no. 69 of 2023, I was sued in my capacity Registrar Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, together with Justice Anthony Gruchot in his personal and official capacity, The Registrar of Lands and the Attorney General. In that action brought by Originating Motion the Applicant alleges I refused to file a document titled, Notice of Intention to Appeal and Notice to Appeal.
d. That I ought to act pursuant to a precedent set by Justice Simmons and Justice Gruchot when similar applications for recusal was made by the same Applicant (Mr. Duncanson); they both provided statements in response to the recusal applications.
Held: The application is refused. I am not of the view that any of the matters raised by Mr. Duncanson meet the relevant threshold to give rise to apparent bias and I am not of the view that there are any grounds for my general recusal.
There exists a presumption that judicial officers will discharge their duties with impartiality and in accordance with the Constitution and the onus of rebutting that presumption and demonstrating bias lies with the person alleging it see RBTT Trust -v- Flowers [2012] 80 WIR 139. My responses to the allegations against me made by Mr. Duncanson can be summarized as follows:- a. In respect of associations with persons and organisations, as indicated I have no associations with any persons or organisations involved in this action. b. In respect of failing to perform administrative tasks, no evidence was provided of there being actual failure to perform or that a fair minded observer would conclude that any such failure, which has not been proved, was due to bias. c. In respect of my being sued in my official capacity, even though this matter was dismissed and is now under appeal, Mr. Duncanson has once again failed to show how a fair minded observed would conclude that my participation in such action against me in my professional capacity would lead to the real possibility of me being biased against him in a taxation hearing in my capacity as a Taxation Registrar.
In the present case, Mr. Duncanson has failed to provide any evidence of words uttered by me against him which would be capable of amounting to bias and which a fair-minded observer would so conclude.
In Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd [2000] QB 451 whilst not listing the circumstances which would amount to a real danger of bias, mention was made of instances where a real danger of bias might well arise. These include personal friendship or animosity between the judge and persons involved in the case or personal acquaintance with such persons, where issues of credibility of individuals must be decided by the Judge and the Judge had in a previous case rejected such individuals' evidence, where in the course of proceedings before him the Judge made comments or expressed views in the course of the hearing in extreme and unbalanced terms to throw doubt on objectivity or, if for other reasons there were real grounds for doubting the ability of the Judge to ignore extraneous considerations. Mr. Duncanson has not provided any evidence that any of the matters mentioned in Locabail apply to the current case. In fact, it can be said factually and evidentially that I have no association with any of the parties to this case, neither is there any evidence of animosity between myself and the parties. Additionally, there are no proceedings before me involving Mr. Duncanson where adverse comments were made by me against him.
There is also no evidence doubting my ability to tax a bill of costs while ignoring extraneous considerations whatever they may be.