News Litigation The Bar Appeal court removes Peter Smith J from Mills & Reeve negligence case By Margaret Taylor 25 January 2011 15:50 17 December 2015 15:31 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer Anonymous 26 January 2011 at 17:34 I am surprised that the C of A should have acted in this way. I have seen the conduct of Judge Wilcox in the Construction and Technology Court where hs was hearing a matrimonial matter and it seems some Judges feel they are above sanction. Reply Link Anonymous 26 January 2011 at 18:18 How many times must the CoA sanction the same High Court judge before more serious action is taken by the Lord Chancellor? Reply Link Anonymous 31 January 2011 at 11:38 An application for summary judgement at trial seems to be a little late if the firm had notice of the claim back in March 2008? It seems to me the Judge was acting in accordance with the overriding objective. Reply Link David Dabbs 2 February 2011 at 17:39 The application for summary judgment was courageous but appropriate on the facts. Permission to amend was given by the Judge on the basis of what the Swains’ counsel claimed would be anticipated expert evidence in support of “new case A”; but in the event the Swains filed an amendment (and expert report) which sought to allege “new case B” – for which permission had not been given. New Case B dropped altogether the claim of negligence as originally pleaded – so from the poor solicitors’ point of view, why not try for a summary strike-out? Reply Link Anonymous 22 April 2011 at 03:22 No surprises. We have just successfully asked this Judge to recuse himself and stand down on the case for apparent bias. Surely in light of his previous record this Judge must now be removed from the judiciary altogether in the interest of administration of justice? Reply Link Anonymous 5 May 2012 at 16:42 From what I gather about Mr Justice Peter Smith on the basis of these kinds of press reports and from the views of members of the profession generally who have encountered him, I simply do not understand what a judge has to do to be discharged from the judiciary. In any other walk of life, Smith’s persistent record would have caused his removal a long time ago. It is frankly shameful he is still there causing a stir in the worst manner possible. Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.