Blog

The House of Lords heard the case of Dime v. Grand Junction Canal(1852) 3 HLC 579 in 1852.  In this case, the issue of “Judges must not appear to be biased” was raised. 

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

In the case of Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal, (1852) 3 HLC 579, the appellant had been involved in protracted legal battles with the respondent business. He challenged a decision made by the V.C. Dime’s to the Lord Chancellor, who decided against him. The appellant eventually learned that the Chancellor owned stock in the respondent company. In the appeal, their Lordships of the House of Lords held that even though the Lord Chancellor accidentally omitted to reveal his stake in the corporation, such interest (pecuniary bias) was enough to render the Lord Chancellor’s ruling unconstitutional.

JUDGMENT :

A canal company sued a landowner in equity in a previous case that was heard by Lord Cottenham. It was eventually discovered that Lord Cottenham had stock in the company. The jury found that no case should be determined by a judge who has a financial stake in the outcome, notwithstanding the fact that there was no evidence that the Lord Chancellor had in fact been influenced by his ownership of the corporation. Due to his involvement in the case, it was decided that the Lord Chancellor was ineligible to serve as a judge.

JUDGMENT REVIEW BY SREYA MARY.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”