Although following the precedent established in R the Appeal Court in Locabail recognised that it was not totally in accord with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice. Once the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force in October 2000 it was open to and, indeed, required of the court to consider and refine the test in in the light of the ECtHR's decisions.

Director General of Fair Trading v Proprietary Association of Great Britain [2000] lWLR 700

Lord Phillips MR:

The law in relation to bias

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides:

Right to a fair trial

In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law...

Since October 2, 2000 English courts have been obliged under the Human Rights Act 1998 to give effect to the right to a fair trial as embodied in Article 6. The requirement that the tribunal should be independent and impartial is one that has long been recognised by English common law. An appellate or reviewing court will set aside a decision affected by bias. The precise test to be applied when determining whether a decision should be set aside on account of bias has, however, given rise to difficulty, reflected in judicial formulations that have appeared in conflict. The House of Lords in R v Gough [1993] AC 646 attempted to resolve that conflict. In Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd [2000] QB 451 at 476 this court observed that the test in Gough had not commanded universal approval outside this jurisdiction and that Scotland and some Commonwealth countries preferred an alternative test which might be 'more clearly in harmony with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights'. Since October 2 the English courts have been required to take that jurisprudence into account. This then is an occasion to review Gough to see whether the test it lays down is, indeed, in conflict with Strasbourg jurisprudence... Bias is an attitude of mind which prevents the judge from making an objective determination of the issues that he has to resolve. A judge may be biased because he has reason to prefer one outcome of the case to another. He may be biased because he has reason to favour one party rather than another. He may be biased not in favour of one outcome of the dispute but because of a prejudice in favour of or against a particular witness which prevents an impartial assessment of the evidence of that witness. Bias can come in many forms. It may consist of irrational prejudice or it may arise from particular circumstances which, for logical reasons, predispose a Judge towards a particular view of the evidence or issues before him. The decided cases draw a distinction between'actual bias' and'apparent bias'. The phrase 'actual bias' has not been used with great precision and has been applied to the situation