The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $11,300 for unpaid cabinet work.
The appellants alleged they had paid in cash.
During the respondent's cross-examination, the trial judge made several interventions expressing disbelief in the cash payment defence and stating he was insulted that the respondent had not been paid.
The Divisional Court found these interventions created a reasonable apprehension of bias, as the trial judge had effectively decided the case before hearing the defence.
The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.
