Attorney General v Sean Sullivan (CL 53 of 2020) [2021] TCASC 6 (3 March 2021)

Flynote

Legal Profession|Legal Professional and Judicial Conduct|Principles

Case summary

The Defendant’s application is dismissed, with costs on the standard basis to the Plaintiff.   The test to be applied in this application is: a risk that the confidence of the public in the judicial process would be impaired. There is no expectation for a lawyer to recuse himself on the whiff of partiality, as is expected by a judge: Geveran Trading Co. Ltd v. Skjevesland [2002] EWCA Civ 1567 [CONSIDERED], Koch Shipping Inc. v. Richards Butler [2002] EWCA Civ 1280 [dictum of Tucker LJ at para 53 APPLIED]. (paras 27-28, 34)  Evidence of impropriety in the discharge of their duties to their clients and in breach of their professional ethical rules is required, and is not shown in this case. Bolkiah v. KPMG [1998] UKHL 52; [1999] 2 AC 222; [1999] 1 All ER 517 [CONSIDERED]. (paras 29-33)  There is no full justification to remove Mr Harris as there is no confidential information in issue. Ladislav Hornan (Liquidator) v. Latif Group SL et al [2003] EWHC 536 [CONSIDERED] (para 43) 

---