Court Says Judge Should Not Have Heard Case From Bed

Published: 23 September 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

A judge should not have heard a legal appeal from his bed while recovering from surgery, the Court of Appeal has ruled, although it concluded that the unusual arrangement did not cause injustice in the case before it.

Richard Clayton KC, who was sitting as a deputy High Court judge, conducted a hearing remotely from his bed after undergoing an operation for a ruptured Achilles tendon. The hearing concerned an appeal brought by optician Suleman Patel against a finding of serious misconduct by the General Optical Council.

The Court of Appeal rejected Patel’s challenge to the outcome of the case, finding that the circumstances surrounding the hearing did not make the resulting judgment unreliable. However, the appeal court issued a clear warning about the conditions in which judges should conduct hearings, saying that judicial proceedings should normally take place when the judge has the necessary equipment, working environment and ability to perform the role properly.

The case has attracted attention because of the unusual circumstances in which the original hearing took place. Clayton had returned home from hospital after surgery and was unable to stand for eight days. Despite his physical condition, he agreed to hear the case by video link.

During the hearing, Clayton acknowledged that conducting proceedings from his bed was difficult. He said he was sitting in a prone position, making it harder for him to navigate the PDF bundles containing the case documents. He nevertheless told the parties that he had read the relevant material and intended to proceed.

The judge later acknowledged that the hearing had proved considerably more demanding than he had expected. He said his physical condition affected his ability to write things down and that the situation had become difficult. At other points in the proceedings, however, the transcript recorded him saying that he was maintaining a proper note of the arguments and evidence being presented.

Clayton also told those involved that the hearing was testing his stamina significantly. At the conclusion, he apologised for difficulties experienced at the beginning and explained that dealing with the hearing largely from a non-sitting position had been challenging, although he considered it possible to continue.

The circumstances were subsequently examined by the Court of Appeal after Patel challenged the High Court decision. Patel argued that the way his appeal had been handled had fallen below the standard expected of a court and questioned whether the resulting judgment could be regarded as reliable.

The Court of Appeal, however, did not accept that the circumstances justified overturning the decision against him. Lord Justice Phillips, sitting with Lady Justice Falk, concluded that the procedural difficulties had not resulted in injustice in the particular case.

The court nevertheless considered the judge’s decision to conduct the hearing from bed to have been inappropriate in the circumstances. Phillips said judges should generally undertake hearings only when they have the essential tools and conditions required to carry out their judicial responsibilities properly and professionally.

The court recognised that there may be circumstances in which a judge has to work in unusual conditions. Exceptional situations could include cases involving great urgency or circumstances in which a particular judge is uniquely placed to hear a matter. But the court said such circumstances did not exist in this case.

Phillips said there had been no great urgency and that alternative arrangements could have been made. In his view, the hearing should therefore have been listed before a judge who was able to sit in the conventional manner and work under normal conditions.

The ruling does not establish that judges can never participate in hearings from a bed or from somewhere other than a conventional desk or courtroom setting. Instead, the court stressed that such arrangements should be treated as a last resort.

The distinction is important because modern courts increasingly use remote hearings and video technology. Remote participation has become an established feature of legal proceedings, allowing judges, lawyers and parties to take part without necessarily being physically present in the same courtroom. But the Court of Appeal’s comments underline that technological access alone is not sufficient if a judge’s physical circumstances prevent them from working effectively.

The case also illustrates the responsibilities attached to judicial office. A judge is required not only to understand the legal arguments being presented but also to follow documents, make notes, consider submissions and maintain concentration throughout proceedings. The Court of Appeal’s concern was therefore focused on whether the judge had the practical conditions necessary to perform those tasks.

Clayton had apparently been advised that he should not stand for eight days following his discharge from hospital. He was also taking paracetamol for his condition and said he had discussed the situation with senior administrative staff at the court before proceeding with the hearing.

Despite those arrangements, the Court of Appeal considered that the responsibility for deciding whether a hearing should go ahead ultimately required greater consideration of the practical limitations imposed by the judge’s injury.

The underlying dispute involved Patel’s professional status. The General Optical Council had imposed a nine-month suspension after a finding of serious misconduct. Patel subsequently challenged that decision through the courts.

The High Court appeal was heard by Clayton, who dismissed Patel’s challenge. Patel then took the matter to the Court of Appeal, arguing in part that the manner in which the original proceedings had been conducted raised concerns about the reliability of the judgment.

The Court of Appeal ultimately rejected that argument. It did not find that the judge’s physical circumstances had caused an injustice in determining Patel’s appeal.

That distinction means the judgment contains two separate messages. First, the court upheld the outcome of the individual case. Second, it criticised the decision to conduct the hearing under the conditions in which it took place.

The ruling therefore provides guidance for future cases involving judges who become unwell or are recovering from medical treatment. A judge’s willingness to continue working despite an injury may be viewed as a commitment to the administration of justice, but that willingness cannot replace the need for appropriate working conditions.

The Court of Appeal recognised the deputy judge’s effort and resilience while recovering from his injury. Phillips acknowledged that Clayton had been willing to hear the case in difficult circumstances. But the court made clear that judicial proceedings must be organised around the proper administration of justice rather than simply around whether a judge is willing to continue working.

The judgment also highlights the importance of practical preparation in court proceedings. Legal cases can involve large documentary bundles, detailed submissions and complex arguments. Judges need to be able to access those materials efficiently while listening to lawyers, making notes and considering the evidence.

In a conventional courtroom or office setting, those requirements are supported by appropriate furniture, equipment and working space. From a hospital bed or home recovery environment, the same tasks can become considerably more difficult, particularly immediately after surgery.

For Patel, the Court of Appeal’s conclusion means that the unusual circumstances did not provide sufficient grounds for overturning the decision against him. The court found no injustice requiring the case to be reheard simply because the original judge had participated while recovering from his injury.

For the wider judiciary, however, the case carries a practical message. Remote hearings can provide flexibility, but they do not remove the need for judges to have suitable conditions in which to perform their duties. Where there is no pressing reason to proceed immediately, arrangements should be made to ensure that the hearing takes place when the judge is physically able to carry out the work to the expected professional standard.

The ruling consequently leaves open the possibility of remote participation in exceptional circumstances while drawing a firm line against treating personal determination as a substitute for proper judicial working conditions.

The case is also a reminder that the administration of justice depends not only on legal principles but on the practical circumstances in which decisions are made. Even where no injustice ultimately results, the Court of Appeal has indicated that unusual arrangements should be used sparingly and only when there is a compelling reason to do so.