Taylor v. Lawrence, [2003] QB 528

This case asks: can the Court of Appeal reopen a finished case to stop a serious injustice, especially where a judge’s impartiality is questioned? The Court said there is a narrow, residual power to reopen in truly exceptional situations, when no other remedy exists. On the facts here, the Court found no apparent bias and refused to reopen.

• Core holding: Residual power to reopen exists but is rarely used.
• Bias test: Fair-minded, informed observer—real possibility of bias?
• Outcome: No real possibility of bias; application dismissed.

1. Does the Court of Appeal have jurisdiction to reopen a concluded appeal to prevent significant injustice?
2. Was apparent bias made out given the judge’s undisclosed link with the claimants’ solicitors?
3. Do exceptional circumstances justify admitting fresh evidence to challenge impartiality?

• Residual jurisdiction to reopen: Used only to stop significant injustice when no effective alternative remedy exists. Finality remains the norm.
• Apparent bias test: Would a fair-minded and informed observer see a real possibility of bias? Full and timely judicial disclosure supports confidence.

The Court of Appeal confirmed a residual jurisdiction to reopen appeals, but only in exceptional cases to prevent serious injustice where no other remedy exists. Applying the fair-minded and informed observer test, the Court held there was no real possibility of bias. The late disclosure was criticised, yet it did not meet the bias threshold. Evidence obtained by impersonation could not justify reopening. The application to reopen was dismissed, while leave to apply to the House of Lords was permitted.

Court of Appeal may reopen to avoid significant injustice only when truly necessary and no other remedy exists. Apparent bias depends on how a fair-minded, informed observer would view the situation, taking all facts together.

• Balances finality and fairness: Reopening is possible but rare.
• Clarifies bias standard: Objective, context-based test builds public trust.
• Integrity of process: Courts reject tainted, improperly obtained “evidence.”

Mnemonic: “RARE BIAS FIX”

• RARE: Reopen only in exceptional cases.
• BIAS: Fair-minded observer looks for a real possibility.
• FIX: Use reopening only when no other remedy can fix the injustice.

3-Step Hook:

1. Severity: Is there significant injustice?
2. Standard: Would an informed observer see real bias?
3. Substitute: Is there any effective alternative remedy?

Issue: Power to reopen a concluded appeal and whether apparent bias existed.

Rule: Residual jurisdiction for exceptional injustice; fair-minded observer test for bias.

Application: On all the facts, no real possibility of bias; tainted “evidence” rejected; other remedies considered.

Conclusion: Application to reopen dismissed; finality preserved.

Residual Jurisdiction

A narrow, last-resort power to revisit a concluded appeal to prevent serious injustice.

Apparent Bias

Bias seen through the eyes of a fair-minded, informed observer as a real possibility.

Fresh Evidence

New material not used earlier; must be credible and properly obtained to be considered.