Payone GmbH v Logo: civil restraint order hearing adjourned on apparent bias grounds

A High Court judge has adjourned a civil restraint order application, not because of the defendant's health, but because a late disclosure about the judge's own past raised an arguable question of apparent bias. In Payone GmbH v Logo [2026] EWHC 2834 (KB), Cavanagh J gave an oral judgement on 3 November 2026 that dealt at length with a litigant in person's adjournment request before reaching the recusal issue.

Payone sought a general civil restraint order (GCRO) or, alternatively, an extended order (ECRO) against Mr Logo, together with an order under the inherent jurisdiction restraining applications and claims in the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal. Mr Logo, who did not attend, had twice applied to adjourn on health grounds. Philip Judd appeared for Payone, instructed by Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe (UK) LLP.

The judge refused the health-based adjournment. Applying the principles set out by Warby J in Decker v Hopcraft, he accepted that a court should hesitate before refusing a first medical application from a litigant in person, but noted that a party cannot compel an adjournment by declining to attend. The most recent expert report fell well short of saying Mr Logo could not take part, and with reasonable adjustments and remote attendance he could participate fairly. The judge also pointed to the detailed witness statement and draft undertakings he had prepared.

The nature of the hearing weighed heavily. The facts underpinning a restraint order were matters of public record, leaving little scope for challenge, and Mr Logo had been the subject of "totally without merit" rulings well in excess of the three required. In the judge's view this was a case where one side was bound to succeed, and only a GCRO, accompanied by an order under the inherent jurisdiction following Law Society v Otobo, would be suitable.

The difficulty lay elsewhere. Before his appointment in October 2019, Cavanagh J was Joint Head of Chambers at 11KBW and, ex officio, a director of its service company, 11KBW Limited. He learned only on 2 November that Mr Logo was pursuing a claim against that company, and disclosed the connection immediately. Mr Logo replied that he needed time to consider it.

Applying Porter v Magill, AWG Group v Morrison and Locabail v Bayfield Properties, the judge framed the question as whether apparent bias was arguable, since if so Mr Logo had to be allowed to make submissions. He described the issue as close to the borderline. A former chambers connection with counsel could never justify recusal, but here the service company was an interested party and a potential beneficiary of any order, because it would be shielded from new claims or applications. Citing Locabail, he resolved doubt in favour of recusal, and noted that a data subject access request concerning a former colleague raised no such issue.

The judge adjourned the application "with considerable reluctance", acknowledging the cost to Payone, which was not at fault. The application will be relisted at the first available date, with a half-day estimate and not before him or any other former 11KBW member. He rejected any delay until spring 2027, adding that absent clear proof of a significant change in the medical position, the hearing would proceed even if Mr Logo could not make oral submissions.

Mr Logo's offered undertakings not to start new civil claims against Payone or make new applications in existing proceedings without permission, subject to stated exceptions, will be recorded in the order and breach is likely to amount to contempt. Payone has liberty to apply on 48 hours' notice, and costs are reserved.