The Failure to Recuse: A Judicial Error in Gibraltar

Why Chief Justice Anthony Dudley should have stepped aside in Manasco v Mansion!

Chief Justice Anthony Dudley's decision not to recuse himself from presiding over the Manasco v Mansion litigation raises critical questions about impartiality, judicial fairness and the proper administration of justice in Gibraltar. At the heart of the issue is whether Dudley's extensive involvement with parties related to this case met the threshold of apparent bias, requiring his recusal.

Judicial Impartiality: A Cornerstone of Justice

Under both UK and Gibraltar law, judicial impartiality is more than merely expected; it is a statutory and common law obligation fundamental to ensuring justice. Judicial impartiality is explicitly protected by Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), incorporated into UK domestic law via the Human Rights Act 1998 and similarly applicable within Gibraltar under the Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006. Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.

The critical test for judicial bias was comprehensively established in the leading case of Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, which clarified the test for apparent bias as follows: would a fair-minded and informed observer conclude that there was a real possibility, or a realistic prospect, that the tribunal was biased? Importantly, this test does not necessitate actual bias but centres on the perception or appearance of bias to safeguard the integrity of and public confidence in the judicial process.

Further reinforcing this principle, the Guide to Judicial Conduct (updated 2022) published by the UK Judiciary emphasises that judges must avoid situations that might reasonably lead an objective observer to question their impartiality. This includes recusing themselves proactively whenever potential conflicts arise, however marginal or indirect, as a means of upholding judicial integrity.

Gibraltar adheres strictly to these principles through its own judicial guidelines and procedural rules, notably set forth by the Gibraltar Judicial Service Commission, requiring that judges step aside from cases whenever circumstances could lead to any appearance of partiality or bias.

Thus, it is clear that impartiality is not merely an ethical aspiration; it is a stringent legal and professional duty, enshrined explicitly within multiple legal frameworks to protect justice and preserve the public's trust in the courts.

Conflict 1: The Europort Property Transfer

In the context of Manasco v Mansion, particular concern arises from Chief Justice Anthony Dudley’s alleged involvement in adjudicating a property transaction involving the Europort complex in Gibraltar, a deal which, according to the defendant, carried geopolitical and ethical sensitivities given the international sanctions landscape at the time.

Between 2011 and 2013, multiple European states, acting under the framework of Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, implemented widespread asset freezes targeting associates of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, including entities and individuals connected to his regime’s financial and property holdings.

Reports from Reuters, DW and The Guardian document that more than €1 billion worth of assets were seized across Europe during this period, with significant properties frozen in Spain, France and Germany. These measures reflected a coordinated international effort to sanction human rights abuses in Syria and limit the regime’s global financial reach.

It is within this environment that a property transfer in Gibraltar’s Europort area, allegedly involving individuals linked to the Assad family; has drawn scrutiny. While the full contractual and judicial details remain outside the public domain, it has been alleged that Isolas LLP, now representing Mansion in the current proceedings, played a legal advisory role in facilitating the transaction.

Notably, Isolas LLP has a long-standing reputation for representing high-net-worth individuals in complex offshore property matters and is known to have represented interests in the Atlantic Suites development prior to the EU asset freezes. What intensifies the appearance of impropriety is the reported judicial approval of this transaction by Chief Justice Dudley, despite the global sanctions climate and the perceived need for heightened scrutiny.

Critics argue that, regardless of whether the transaction was legally permissible at the time, the involvement of a prominent local firm with ties to the same parties now appearing before the court in Manasco v Mansion and the judicial continuity linking both proceedings, creates the appearance of partiality as defined in Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67 and reaffirmed in Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd [2000] QB 451.

The circumstances, an international sanctions backdrop, an expedited property transfer and overlap between legal counsel and judicial authority, collectively raise serious questions about whether adequate safeguards against perceived conflicts of interest were applied. In jurisdictions where judicial independence and transparency are paramount, these kinds of associations can erode public confidence, even absent any proven wrongdoing.

Accordingly, this episode strengthens the argument that Chief Justice Dudley should have recused himself from any litigation involving Isolas LLP or connected parties, to uphold both the reality and the perception of impartiality, as required under Gibraltar’s constitutional framework and general principles of English common law.

Conflict 2: Extensive Ties with Isolas LLP

The law firm Isolas LLP maintains substantial and complex ties to parties directly involved in the Mansion litigation, raising significant questions about judicial impartiality. Judicial ethics outlined in the UK’s Guide to Judicial Conduct (2022) require judges to avoid any scenario that could suggest compromised impartiality.

• Albert Isola, a senior partner at Isolas LLP, concurrently served as Gibraltar’s Minister for Finance and Gaming during key periods of the litigation involving Mansion. Such dual roles (public officeholder and senior legal partner) pose considerable concerns under the Ministerial Code of Conduct, which requires public officials to avoid situations that might reasonably lead to perceptions of conflict or undue influence. Notably, Ministerial responsibilities inherently entail obligations of impartiality and transparency, as affirmed in legal precedents such as Davidson v Scottish Ministers [2004] UKHL 34. Albert Isola’s ministerial position allegedly facilitated exclusive communications with Mansion’s Ultimate Beneficial Owner, Putera Sampoerna, without extending equivalent access to Mr Manasco, thereby raising legitimate questions regarding fair administrative procedures under public law standards.
• Sapphire Networks, an entity closely associated with Isolas LLP, reportedly benefited financially from asset sales conducted by Mansion, further illustrating interconnected financial interests between entities linked to the judiciary and Mansion’s counsel. Such circumstances reinforce concerns over the impartiality and fairness required of judicial processes, standards clearly articulated in Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, whereby the appearance of partiality alone mandates judicial recusal.

These substantial and documented relationships require Chief Justice Dudley's recusal from any case involving Isolas LLP or associated entities, ensuring compliance with standards protecting public trust in judicial integrity.

Conflict 3: The Gaming Regulator and GRA Bias

Chief Justice Dudley continued to preside over the case despite significant concerns involving alleged regulatory bias by Gibraltar’s gaming authorities.

The Gibraltar Gaming Regulator, whose appointment and oversight occurred during Albert Isola's tenure as Minister for Gaming, is accused by Mr Manasco of selectively disregarding serious allegations of criminal conduct lodged against Mansion.

Under Gibraltar’s Gambling Act 2005 and associated regulatory framework, particularly Sections 6 and 11, regulators have an unequivocal duty to investigate credible claims of misconduct and criminality.

Moreover, the Gibraltar Regulatory Authority (GRA), established under the Gibraltar Regulatory Authority Act 2000, allegedly neglected its statutory responsibility under Gibraltar’s Data Protection Act 2004, which transposes the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), by failing to investigate or respond adequately to a significant breach involving Mr Manasco’s and his wife’s personal data.

This lack of appropriate regulatory action implies potential institutional bias, undermining judicial independence and impartiality mandated by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Given the outlined regulatory shortcomings, a reasonable observer informed of these matters could perceive an unacceptable risk of systemic bias, reinforcing the argument for judicial recusal to uphold both procedural fairness and public confidence in Gibraltar’s judicial and regulatory frameworks.

Conflict 4: GBC News Influence

An additional area of concern involves media influence potentially undermining judicial impartiality and public transparency. James Montado, a leading solicitor at Isolas LLP actively involved in representing Mansion, simultaneously held a position on the board of the Gibraltar Broadcasting Corporation (GBC), Gibraltar’s primary public media outlet.

Such dual responsibilities directly contravene established principles of impartiality and media independence outlined within Section 111 of Gibraltar's Broadcasting Act 2012, which mandates neutrality and balanced reporting from public broadcasters.

This overlap, particularly given the lack of balanced reporting or adequate opportunities for Mr Manasco to present his side publicly, suggests a risk of undue influence or at least the perception thereof.

The Ofcom Broadcasting Code (UK), which strongly influences Gibraltar’s broadcasting standards, further underscores that broadcasting must maintain impartiality, particularly regarding matters of significant controversy or active litigation.

Consequently, Mr Montado’s concurrent roles substantially impair public confidence in judicial impartiality and media objectivity, reinforcing the imperative for judicial recusal and independent oversight to restore trust in the fairness of proceedings and media integrity.

Procedural Irregularities Undermining Justice

Ignoring the Amended Defence

Chief Justice Dudley, despite substantial and detailed amendments introduced by Mr Manasco in his defence, which included assertions and evidentiary references to alleged irregularities involving Mansion, proceeded to issue interim orders based solely on the initial defence submission.

In civil proceedings within Gibraltar and under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) (1998, UK, mirrored in Gibraltar practice), courts are obliged to duly consider all relevant pleadings and amendments, provided they satisfy criteria of relevance and substantiation as established in Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No.3) [2001] UKHL 16.

The amended defence presented by Manasco was dismissed by Dudley as “sensationalist,” a determination that arguably lacks explicit legal foundation and could conflict with the judicial obligation to assess claims based on evidential merit and procedural fairness principles.

Wrongful Freezing Order (WFO) Application

Chief Justice Dudley imposed a Worldwide Freezing Order (WFO) against Mr Manasco, an exceptional measure under English and Gibraltar law. The application of WFOs, governed by principles outlined in Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA [1980] 1 All ER 213 (CA), requires clear evidence of a substantial risk of asset dissipation.

In the absence of substantiated evidence of asset removal or dissipation risk as required by the stringent conditions outlined in the case law (JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov [2009] EWCA Civ 1125), the imposition of such a measure can be considered excessively punitive.

The resulting financial and reputational harm underscores the necessity for impartial judicial assessment in accordance with procedural safeguards set forth by English common law, ensuring the equitable balance of litigants' rights.

Contempt Proceedings: A Manifestation of Bias

Chief Justice Dudley’s decision not to recuse himself from presiding over the contempt proceedings, despite prior and explicit allegations of bias by Mr Manasco, raises significant questions under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), guaranteeing a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal.

According to the principle established in Kyprianou v Cyprus [2005] ECHR 873, judicial impartiality is compromised when a judge, previously accused of bias, continues presiding over contempt proceedings directly related to the original allegations.

Repeated references by Dudley to potential imprisonment further amplify concerns over impartiality and procedural fairness, potentially breaching human rights standards as incorporated in Gibraltar’s Human Rights Act 1998 (UK).

Selective and Unbalanced Disclosure Orders

Disclosure obligations in civil litigation are governed rigorously under Part 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), mandating balanced, proportionate and justified disclosure orders. Chief Justice Dudley’s decisions to grant extensive disclosure requests by Mansion, involving sensitive personal financial data of Mr Manasco and his Family, whilst concurrently refusing reciprocal and arguably pertinent disclosure requests from Manasco, suggests deviation from standard procedural fairness principles.

Such unbalanced disclosure arrangements arguably fail the proportionality test as reiterated by the UK Supreme Court in Al Rawi v Security Service [2011] UKSC 34, which explicitly underscores the duty of the courts to ensure balanced and equitable treatment regarding disclosure matters.

Private Hearing and Violating Open Justice

Chief Justice Dudley authorised private hearings related to the amended defence submitted by Mr Manasco, a decision with significant implications regarding transparency and public confidence in judicial processes.

Open justice, as articulated in the landmark decision Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417, is fundamental to democratic and fair legal processes.

Any deviation must strictly adhere to conditions laid out in cases such as Guardian News and Media Ltd v AB and CD [2014] EWCA Civ 1598, requiring exceptional justification.

The decision by Dudley to conduct a private hearing potentially limited necessary public scrutiny, contrary to standard judicial transparency and openness and disproportionately protected Mansion’s representatives from public examination of allegations raised by Mr Manasco.

Legal Standards and Judicial Ethics

The Gibraltar Judicial Service Commission Guidelines articulate clearly that judges must proactively recuse themselves from any matters in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. English common law principles, as established in Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd [2000] QB 451, underscore that even the appearance of compromised impartiality mandates recusal.

Given Chief Justice Dudley’s extensive prior connections and procedural decisions highlighted in Mr Manasco’s case, these circumstances provide a strong basis under both Gibraltar’s guidelines and English jurisprudence for the necessity of judicial recusal to safeguard judicial impartiality and integrity.

Conclusion and Impact on Mr Manasco

Chief Justice Anthony Dudley’s failure to recuse himself from the proceedings in Manasco v Mansion has raised profound legal, procedural and ethical concerns.

The detailed examination provided above highlights several substantial issues that collectively suggest significant deviations from fundamental standards of judicial impartiality and procedural fairness, principles essential to Gibraltar’s legal system and the broader standards upheld within UK and European jurisprudence.

This analysis underscores critical conflicts, including the Chief Justice’s prior favourable decisions benefiting Isolas LLP, extensive personal and institutional ties, evident regulatory oversight failings and procedural irregularities such as the improper dismissal of amended pleadings, imposition of disproportionate interim orders and private hearings which contradict the fundamental doctrine of open justice.

Direct Impact on Mr Manasco

The consequences of Chief Justice Dudley's judicial decisions and alleged procedural irregularities have had substantial, direct and detrimental effects on Mr Manasco, both financially and reputationally.

The imposition of a Worldwide Freezing Order (WFO), without clearly substantiated evidence of asset dissipation risk as mandated by precedent (JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov [2009] EWCA Civ 1125), severely restricted his financial autonomy and caused significant personal hardship.

Such orders, described by Lord Denning in Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA [1980] 1 All ER 213 as “draconian,” must be used sparingly, yet the severity and breadth of the order imposed on Mr Manasco arguably exceeded justified judicial discretion.

Furthermore, the prejudicial approach to contempt proceedings, wherein repeated reference to imprisonment was made by a judge previously accused of bias, amplified concerns regarding a potential violation of the fair trial rights guaranteed under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The failure to uphold these principles has significantly compromised Mr Manasco’s ability to defend himself adequately, further intensifying his personal and professional stress.

The selective and disproportionate disclosure rulings imposed upon Mr Manasco, granting broad access to sensitive personal and financial information whilst concurrently withholding reciprocal disclosures, further accentuated the imbalance and questioned judicial neutrality as emphasised in the Al Rawi v Security Service [2011] UKSC 34 decision.

Broader Judicial and Public Impact

Beyond the immediate personal consequences for Mr Manasco, Chief Justice Dudley’s actions and decisions, as highlighted throughout this analysis, pose serious risks to public confidence in the judicial system of Gibraltar.

Judicial impartiality is not merely an individual right; it is foundational to maintaining public confidence in justice, as highlighted by Lord Hope in Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67. Public perceptions of judicial bias, even when not reflective of actual prejudice, significantly undermine the legitimacy and effectiveness of judicial processes.

This erosion of confidence has potential economic implications, particularly regarding international investor trust in Gibraltar’s legal and regulatory frameworks, emphasised in regulatory compliance assessments by bodies such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).

Consequently, maintaining strict judicial impartiality is not solely a matter of procedural integrity but also critical to the jurisdiction’s broader socio-economic stability and international reputation.

Recommendations and Path Forward

In light of the significant procedural and ethical questions raised concerning the impartiality of Chief Justice Anthony Dudley and the judicial processes involved in Manasco v Mansion, specific judicial remedies should be urgently considered.

Immediate Reconsideration of the Bench Warrant

Firstly, the issuance of the Bench Warrant against Mr Manasco, stemming directly from his failure to attend a sentencing hearing presided over by a judge subject to a credible recusal request, merits immediate judicial reconsideration.

According to established precedent under UK and Gibraltar law, a valid recusal application should ideally pause proceedings, as underscored by the principle set forth in AWG Group Ltd v Morrison [2006] EWCA Civ 6, highlighting that recusal applications must be decided comprehensively before substantive proceedings continue.

The procedural anomaly arising from Chief Justice Dudley's decision to simultaneously dismiss the recusal and issue an arrest warrant arguably compromised procedural fairness under Article 6 ECHR, incorporated by Gibraltar’s Constitution.

Urgent Review and Possible Revocation of the Worldwide Freezing Order

Secondly, the Worldwide Freezing Order (WFO) imposed on Mr Manasco should be subject to urgent judicial review. English and Gibraltar courts have consistently emphasised, as articulated in Dadourian Group International Inc v Simms [2006] EWCA Civ 399, that freezing orders constitute “nuclear weapons” in litigation and must meet rigorous evidentiary thresholds, specifically requiring clear proof of real risk of dissipation of assets (JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank v Pugachev [2015] EWCA Civ 906).

Given the procedural irregularities highlighted and in absence of robustly substantiated evidence meeting these stringent legal thresholds, the continuation of such an invasive order appears disproportionate and potentially unjust.

Independent Judicial Assessment and Transfer of Proceedings

Given the questions surrounding judicial impartiality and fairness, a compelling recommendation would be the transfer of the matter to an independent and impartial judge, ideally from outside Gibraltar’s immediate judicial jurisdiction.

This would reflect best practice from comparable jurisdictions such as Jersey and Bermuda, where serious allegations of judicial bias typically trigger reassignment to external adjudicators to uphold impartiality standards.

Such transfers serve as essential safeguards for maintaining public confidence, as reinforced by Taylor v Lawrence [2002] EWCA Civ 90, asserting that justice must not only be done but manifestly be seen to be done.

Transparent and Impartial Review

A transparent, independent and impartial inquiry or judicial review should be convened to investigate fully the procedural and ethical irregularities alleged by Mr Manasco. This inquiry should specifically examine the conduct and decision-making processes involving Chief Justice Dudley and entities such as Isolas LLP, the Gibraltar Gaming Regulator, the Gibraltar Regulatory Authority (GRA) and Gibraltar Broadcasting Corporation (GBC), particularly focusing on compliance with impartiality, procedural fairness and open justice principles as mandated by the Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006.

Judicial and Regulatory Reforms

Broader procedural reforms should be implemented within Gibraltar's judiciary, guided by standards already established in the Guide to Judicial Conduct (2022) and the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). Such reforms could include mandatory asset disclosure for judges, the establishment of clearly defined recusal panels, regular rotation of judges and clear guidelines mandating immediate suspension of proceedings pending determination of recusal applications.

Such systemic enhancements would substantially mitigate future risks of judicial bias and procedural irregularities, reaffirming Gibraltar’s adherence to internationally recognised judicial standards.

Conclusion and Immediate Steps

Implementing the above recommendations would represent concrete steps towards remedying the immediate adverse legal consequences faced by Mr Manasco, including the lifting of the Bench Warrant and revocation of the Worldwide Freezing Order.

More broadly, these measures would significantly enhance the robustness, fairness and transparency of Gibraltar’s judiciary, ensuring both immediate justice for Mr Manasco and sustained public trust in judicial processes.

FAQs

Why is Chief Justice Anthony Dudley's involvement in Manasco v Mansion controversial?
Because of his prior judicial decisions and ties to involved parties, Dudley’s impartiality has been questioned, raising concerns over apparent bias.

What legal standard governs judicial bias in Gibraltar and the UK?
The standard is based on whether a fair-minded observer would conclude there's a real possibility of bias, as set out in Porter v Magill [2001].

What role did Isolas LLP play in the controversy?
Isolas LLP, representing Mansion, previously engaged in legal matters that Dudley adjudicated, creating perceived conflicts of interest.

How is Albert Isola connected to the case?
As a senior partner at Isolas LLP and former Minister for Finance and Gaming, Isola’s dual role raises concerns over undue influence.

What was the issue with the Europort property transfer?
The transfer allegedly involved Assad-linked individuals during EU sanctions, and Dudley reportedly approved it, intensifying conflict concerns.

How did the Gibraltar Regulatory Authority allegedly fail in this case?
The GRA and Gaming Regulator were accused of ignoring credible misconduct allegations and failing to act on data protection breaches.

What were the procedural irregularities involving Mr Manasco’s defence?
Dudley ignored a detailed amended defence and proceeded based on outdated pleadings, potentially breaching fair trial principles.

Why was the Worldwide Freezing Order (WFO) against Mr Manasco criticized?
Critics argue the WFO lacked substantiated evidence and was excessive, conflicting with established legal precedents on asset risk.

Did media influence play a role in this case?
Yes, James Montado of Isolas LLP held a GBC board position, raising concerns about biased media coverage and lack of public balance.

What are the broader implications of this judicial controversy?
It threatens public trust in Gibraltar’s judiciary, with potential ramifications for legal credibility, investor confidence, and regulatory integrity.

Sources:

• Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011213/magill-1.htm
• Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd [2000] QB 451 https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1999/3004.html
• Guide to Judicial Conduct (UK Judiciary, 2022): https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/guide-to-judicial-conduct/
• European Convention on Human Rights – Article 6: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf
• Human Rights Act 1998 (UK): https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents
• Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006: https://www.gibraltarlaws.gov.gi/legislations/gibraltar-constitution-order-2006-1834

· Ministerial Code of Conduct (UK Cabinet Office) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ministerial-code

· Davidson v Scottish Ministers [2004] UKHL 34

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/34.html

· Gambling Act 2005 (Gibraltar)

https://www.gibraltarlaws.gov.gi/legislations/gambling-act-2005-1344

· Gibraltar Regulatory Authority Act 2000

https://www.gibraltarlaws.gov.gi/legislations/gibraltar-regulatory-authority-act-2000-342

· Data Protection Act 2004 (Gibraltar)

https://www.gibraltarlaws.gov.gi/legislations/data-protection-act-2004-1046

· Broadcasting Act 2012 (Gibraltar)

https://www.gibraltarlaws.gov.gi/legislations/broadcasting-act-2012-3188

· Ofcom Broadcasting Code (UK)

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code

· Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 1998 (UK)

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules

· Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No.3) [2001] UKHL 16

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2001/16.html

· Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA [1980] 1 All ER 213

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1975/7.html

· JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov [2009] EWCA Civ 1125

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/1125.html

· Kyprianou v Cyprus [2005] ECHR 873

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-71671%22]}

· Al Rawi v Security Service [2011] UKSC 34

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2010-0107

· Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417 (establishing principle of open justice)

https://www.iclr.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/media/vote/1865-1914/Scott_ac1913-1-417.pdf

· Guardian News and Media Ltd v AB and CD [2014] EWCA Civ 1598

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/guardian-news-and-media-ltd-order.pdf

· Gibraltar Code of Judicial Conduct and Ethics

https://www.gibraltarlaws.gov.gi/legislations/gibraltar-code-of-judicial-conduct-and-ethics-2566

· AWG Group Ltd v Morrison [2006] EWCA Civ 6

https://vlex.co.uk/vid/awg-group-ltd-v-793374581

· Dadourian Group International Inc v Simms [2006] EWCA Civ 399

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/399.html

· JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank v Pugachev [2015] EWCA Civ 906

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/906.html

· Taylor v Lawrence [2002] EWCA Civ 90

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/90.html