A raft of lawyers are poised to apply for judgments handed down by controversial judge Mr Justice Peter Smith to be set aside on the advice of their ATE insurer, The Lawyer has learned.
The unnamed ATE insurance provider is in talks with litigators who were defeated in cases before Peter Smith J about seeking to overturn the findings in the wake of news the judge is “mentally unfit” to defend himself in a disciplinary inquiry.
The news about his health emerged in The Times at the start of August. The report said the High Court judge had been “signed off sick and may never return to work”. Peter Smith J is currently being investigated by the judges’ disciplinary watchdog, the Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office (JCIO), over two complaints relating to his conduct in recent cases.
The Lawyer understands the news prompted discussions between the insurer and lawyers regarding applying to have the judge’s findings set aside on the grounds Peter Smith J was “mentally unfit” to preside over their cases.
One such lawyer said his team was “now actively moving towards making a complaint to the head of the chancery division and applying to have the decision set aside” on the back of The Times article.
He added he had “had a long discussion with counsel about what to do because it’s so unprecedented” and would be filing the application in the coming weeks.
The ATE insurer involved is “also in talks about taking the same course of action” with a number of other cases on the same grounds.
The talks follow a high profile allegation of bias against the judge made in the Court of Appeal earlier this year after Peter Smith J wrote a letter to Blackstone head of chambers Anthony Peto QC stating he wanted “nothing to do” with the set in the wake of an article written by one of its members, Lord Pannick QC.
In the article Pannick accused the judge of “injudicious behaviour” relating to the BA air cargo case last year, from which the judge was forced to recuse himself. Lawyers for Saudi royal Prince bin Fahd argued before the Court of Appeal Peter Smith J could have allowed his response to the article to influence his £25m ruling against their client.
The appellate court threw out the judgment in June calling the judge’s behaviour “shocking and disgraceful”, providing the opportunity for unsuccessful parties in recent disputes to launch similar appeals.
It emerged during the hearing that the Lord Chief Justice directed that no member of Blackstone Chambers should appear before Peter Smith J following the row over Pannick’s article. The Lawyer revealed in the days following the case that Peter Smith J had also been banned from hearing Addleshaw Goddard cases over a row between the judge and the firm in 2007.
