We are all human and some perhaps are more human than others. But while judges should always be unbiased and above the fray, as Roman Poet Horace acknowledged in his Ars Poetica, even Homer can sometimes nod. A recent example appeared in the judgment of Turner J on 15 May 2025 in R (Ladybill Ltd) v Sheffield Magistrates’ Court [2025] EWHC 1169 (Admin). This concerned a judicial challenge to a decision of District Judge Spruce (the judge) when he refused to recuse himself from hearing proceedings between the claimant, Ladybill Ltd, and the interested party, Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (pictured).

In proceedings brought by Sheffield City Council against Emeraldshaw Ltd regarding payment of non-domestic rates, the judge had been particularly critical of Emeraldshaw, which consequently sought to challenge the judge’s decision by judicial review. While this was pending, separate proceedings were brought by Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council against Ladybill Ltd. (A company related to Emeraldshaw since both were part of the MCR Property Group with the same ultimate beneficial owners and directors.) As Turner J indicated, there was ‘a very significant overlap between both the issues arising and the people involved in the two cases’.