'It is trite to say that merely preferring one party's case to that advanced by the other cannot, of itself, give rise to a sustainable claim of apparent bias.' In re Haberlin's Appl'n [2025] NIKB 13, ¶ 33, KBD per Humphreys J.
www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NI...
bailii.org
Haberlin, Re Application for Judicial Review [2025] NIKB 13 (27 February 2025)
![[86]
On the assumption that the unvarnished Wednesbury
principle represents the applicable standard of review
[…] the question for this court is whether this
challenging threshold has been overcome. It is trite
that this threshold can be surpassed in any given case
only where a sufficient evidential foundation exists.
In re McMinnis [2024] NICA 77,
per curiam (coram McCloskey & Horner LJJ &
McBride J)
1](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:wb7lxtwllsdruqjlpugjlvjq/bafkreieer3vsskasxmpyhm57iio7ikkvb5caxsnl6p75vpgvrrgapgxdri)
![[30] The parties agree that there is no direct English authority on the question of whether the engagement by a fiduciary of a related investment company presents "a real possibility of conflict of interest." [31] Mr. Dew for PW says that this may be because the point is trite.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:wb7lxtwllsdruqjlpugjlvjq/bafkreidr37fmf7kgvrecagimylozndpdsaxhghi2pgighbwaedimsk4nai)