Hart and Another v Relentless Records Ltd and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Jacob |
| Judgment Date | 04 October 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] EWHC 1984 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HC 01 02253 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Date | 04 October 2002 |
CHANCERY DIVISION
Before Mr Justice Jacob
Fair trial - corridor meetings between judge and counsel - not part of trial - no bias - no breach of Article 6 - test - courts duty to help settle case
Corridor meetings between a judge and counsel did not give rise to apparent bias, nor did they breach article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights: the right to a fair and public hearing.
Mr Justice Jacob so held in the Chancery Division refusing to recuse himself on the application of Mr Roderick Hart and Relentless Recordings Ltd, the first and second claimants, after he had dismissed the first claimant's claim against Relentless Records Ltd, Relentless Music Publishing Ltd and Media Village PR Ltd, the first, second and third defendants, for passing off, and granted an order for security of costs against the second claimant.
The second claimant's claim was later struck off and that left the defendants' application for summary judgment on their counterclaim for infringement of their registered trade mark.
Mr Giles Fernando for the claimants; Mr James Mellor for the defendants.
MR JUSTICE JACOB said that in deciding whether to recuse himself on the ground of apparent bias he should approach the matter objectively, trying to put himself in the position of another judge of the Chancery Division and that he should consider whether a fair-minded and informed observer sitting at the back of the court would conclude that there was a real possibility that he was biased.
The fact that his Lordship had called counsel into the judge's corridor to inform them that he thought that the case was weak and to say that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alan Bates and Others v Post Office Ltd
...by telling them what is presently in the judge's mind. This may properly include, as it did for example in Jacob J's decision in Hart v Relentless Records Ltd [2002] EWHC 1984 (Ch) §38, letting the parties know before reaching the defence case that the judge did not think much of the claim......
-
Decision Nº O/102/22 from Intellectual Property Office - (Trade market), 7 February 2022
...EWCA (Civ) 1874 where the opponent’s earlier right in the Worcester area was held to be sufficient. 22 See Hart v Relentless Records [2002] EWHC 1984 (ch), paragraph 62. Page 104 of 270 Facebook and Instagram, and that circa £30,000 a year has been spent on marketing and social media activi......
- Advanced Perimeter Systems Ltd v Keycorp Ltd
-
Tartan Army Limited Against (first) Sett Gmbh; (second) Oliver Reifler; (third) Iain Emerson; (fourth) Alba Football Fans Limited
...goodwill can be built up over a short period, in a few weeks: Stannard v Reay. Trivial goodwill is not enough (Hart v Relentless Records [2003] FSR 36), but being a “small player” does not prevent goodwill being established: Stannard v Reay, Stacey v 2020 Communications and Teleworks v Tele......