Chief Justice Larry Mussenden has rejected a call to recuse himself from a case of a woman who claims she was wronged by court officials.

Gayle Ann Ventures launched legal action against Clarien Bank; Justice of Appeal Geoffrey Bell; and Alexandra Wheatley, the Supreme Court Registrar, over legal actions that related to a defaulted mortgage on a property on Blue Hole Hill.

While that case has yet to be heard, in a preliminary hearing Ms Ventures requested that Mr Justice Mussenden should step down over an appearance of bias.

LeYoni Junos, who spoke on behalf of Ms Ventures at the hearing as a McKenzie friend, raised several issues of concern including that she had filed a complaint against the judge over his handling of a prior hearing in the matter last November.

She argued that the way the hearing played out left Ms Ventures with the belief that she could not receive a fair trial before the Chief Justice.

However, Mr Justice Mussenden said in a judgment published last week that such a complaint would not be enough to require a judge to recuse themselves.

He wrote: “If every time a complaint was made against a judge, that judge had to recuse himself from the case, then there is a risk that complaints could be made for that very purpose.

“It would even be open to malicious, frivolous, weak complaints or ones without merit.

“The court should protect itself from such a risk and it should apply the proper rules for an application for recusal, not just acting on the fact of a complaint.”

During the recusal hearing, Ms Junos said that while Mr Justice Mussenden restricted her to speaking on a proposed amendment to the claims, he had allowed Kevin Taylor, the counsel for Clarien Bank, to “rant” about the case.

She said the counsel praised the reputation of both Ms Wheatley and Justice of Appeal Bell, denigrated Ms Ventures’s application and warned of indemnity costs for the case.

Ms Junos said Mr Justice Mussenden then told Ms Ventures to take the comments on board, which she interpreted as the judge indicating he “aligned himself” with the comments.

She further argued that the judge worked closely with Ms Wheatley, in her role as the Registrar of the Supreme Court, which creates an appearance of bias, and that he had assigned her to work as an assistant puisne judge despite the complaint against her.

Mr Justice Mussenden, however, said it was “incredulous” to conclude that his suggestion for Ms Ventures to take comments on board were a directive to not proceed with the case or a suggestion that the case would be dismissed before being heard.

He wrote: “I regarded Mr Taylor’s comments as putting down a marker about the case and that it was comments directed at the case, for which he appeared as counsel for a party, rather than a personal attack on Ms Ventures.

“Ms Ventures may not have liked hearing the comments but she chose to bring the matter and to make the serious claims that she did, and thus, she should be prepared for robust responses to the claims.

“In my view, there was nothing unusual about Mr Taylor flagging up what he considered to be serious allegations with a high bar of proof and its consequences in the form of costs, including about indemnity costs if unsuccessful.

“To that point, judges hear preliminary comments from counsel about the opponent’s case on a routine basis without it rendering the proceedings unfair or the judge being biased.”

Mr Justice Mussenden also said that his working relationship with Ms Wheatley as the Supreme Court Registrar and Justice of Appeal Bell’s position on a higher court would not create an appearance of bias for an independent and fair-minded observer.

“In light of all the issues and reasons that I have set out, I am not satisfied that a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there is a real possibility of bias by me against Ms Ventures in the present case,” he wrote.

“Therefore, I dismiss her recusal application.”

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers