auckland casino v casino control authority

On the other hand, in Porter, the test for apparent bias is whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased. As we will elaborate on below, Gough stands for the proposition that apparent bias is to be ascertained from the perspective of the court and that it is unnecessary to look at a particular matter through the eyes of a reasonable man. However, as the learned Lord Chief Justice Cockburn observed in an extra-judicial address (see George P Costigan Jr, “The Full Remarks on Advocacy of Lord Brougham and Lord Chief Justice Cockburn at the Dinner to M Berryer on November 8, 1864” (1931) 19 Cal L Rev 521 at p 523), which our courts have endorsed and recapitulated on several occasions (most recently by this Court in Goh Seng Heng v Liberty Sky Investments Ltd and another 2 SLR 1113 at ):Ģ9 In essence, the conflict between Tang Kin Hwa and Re Shankar Alan is more apparent than real if one considers that the “real likelihood” test examined in Tang Kin Hwa is not the test set out in R v Gough AC 646 (“ Gough”) but, rather, the test set out in Porter v Magill 2 WLR 37 (“ Porter”) – bearing in mind the fact that Re Shankar Alan disapproved of the test set out in Gough. There is a reason why lawyers are also known as “counsel” – in such situations, lawyers must counsel their clients and apprise them of what is permissible and what is not. They are not mere automatons, executing every instruction of the client, especially where the client wants each and every point to be taken in order to inflict maximum “damage” on the other party, and where the taking of such points is – in a word – pointless and would not only engender a wastage of the other party’s, but also the court’s, time and resources. 3 First, counsel are not the mere “mouthpieces” of their clients.

Auckland casino v casino control authority