I was reflecting on those outrageous comments from HHJ Saggerson in a cost hearing that had bugger all to do with credit hire. At § 16 of his judgment he said:
“This little micro-industry of unknown and unknowable commissions or referral or arrangement fees underscores the risk that litigation is pursued in the interests of an economic ecology far removed from the interests of justice or the protagonists. This is not an unknown problem. The racket that is claims for “Hire Charges” illustrates how this sort of remote ecology can get completely out of hand to the benefit of nobody but lawyers and insurance companies” (my emphasis).
In terms of the Judicial Conducts Investigation Office (JCIO), the complaints that the JCIO report on their website that they will not investigate “bias in a judge’s decision-making” or “a judge expressing opinions about issues related to a case they are hearing.” On that basis, I’m not sure there’s any meaningful answer to this clear declaration of bias save for anyone unfortunate enough to be in front of this judge arguing about their credit hire claim. If that’s you then I think his unfounded characterisation of credit hire as “a racket” would justify an application for him to recuse himself from hearing any credit hire cases (or appeals). I say that based on the content of a document published in Practical Law, written by Matthew Gullick KC of 3 Paper Buildings.
You can access that article at: