Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Law309 4
Law309 4
Law309 4
(OCT 2016)
ISSUE
LAW
Personal bias Personal bias may arise in the adjudicator being against, or in
favour of, one party to the dispute in many varied circumstances. For example,
relationship, friendship, or business dealings with, or hostility or animosity to a
party, may disqualify an official from acting as an adjudicator in the dispute.
The Test of personal bias on the part of the decision-maker is not whether
there was actual prejudice against the petitioner. The courts do not go into all
detailed facts of a case to see whether the petitioner has been actually prejudiced or
not. If actual bias is proved in a case, that is an end of the matter and the adjudicator
concerned must be disqualified. But it is not necessary to prove actual bias in the
adjudicating body.
The Test has been whether there is a ‘real likelihood’ of bias on the facts of a
case and this has to be ascertained with reference to ‘right minded persons’.
lOMoAR cPSD| 11058129
APPLICATION
Based on jason’s case, the case can be refer from the case of Metropolitan
Properties Co v Lannon in which state that a rent appraisal committee offered a
lower price for rent to the tenants compared to the original agreements that was
agreed by the landlord and also the residents. In this case, it seems like Lannon
committed personal biased. This is because they said that Lannon had assisted his
father and other tenants in the fixing of fair rent for their flats. Furthermore, the
Court of Appeal accepted this argument and quashed the decision of the rent
committee on the ground of ‘real likehood’ or bias.
Lord Denning, delivering the judgement of the court, emphasized that it was
of fundamental importance that Justice should not only be done, but should
manifestly be seen to be done. He emphasized that in considering whether there
was a “real likelihood” of bias, the court does not look at the mind of the judge. It
does not look to see if the judge did in fact favour one side at the expense of the
other. “The court looks at the impression which would be given to other people.
Even if he was as impartial as could be, nevertheless, if right- minded persons would
think that, in the circumstances, there was a “real likelihood” of bias on his part,
then he should not sit. And if it does sit, his decision cannot stand.
bias because there is a person who he had been investigated due to the corruption
case.
CONCLUSION