What is the ratio in Dimes?

Any pecuniary interest, however small, automatically disqualifies a judge from hearing a case. This is an absolute rule that does not require proof of actual bias.

What did the court decide in Dimes?

The House of Lords set aside the Lord Chancellor's decision because he had a financial interest in the company that won the case, violating natural justice.

Why is Dimes important for administrative law?

It established the fundamental rule against pecuniary bias and the principle that justice must be seen to be done, influencing all subsequent natural justice cases.

What is the ratio in Dimes?

Any pecuniary interest, however small, automatically disqualifies a judge from hearing a case. This is an absolute rule that does not require proof of actual bias.

What did the court decide in Dimes?

The House of Lords set aside the Lord Chancellor's decision because he had a financial interest in the company that won the case, violating natural justice.

Why is Dimes important for administrative law?

It established the fundamental rule against pecuniary bias and the principle that justice must be seen to be done, influencing all subsequent natural justice cases.

Public Law1 min read

Rule against Bias — Dimes v Grand Junction Canal Co

(1852) 3 HLC 759House of Lords1852

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All Public Law cases →

“Judges cannot decide cases where they have any financial interest whatsoever.”

Facts

Lord Chancellor Cottenham decided a case in favour of the Grand Junction Canal Company while he was a shareholder in the company. Dimes sought to have the decision set aside on grounds of bias after discovering the Lord Chancellor's financial interest.

Issues

Whether a judge's financial interest in a case, regardless of size or whether it influenced the decision, automatically disqualifies them from hearing the case.

Held

The House of Lords held in favour of Dimes. The decision was set aside due to the Lord Chancellor's disqualifying interest.

Significance

This case established the fundamental rule against judicial bias that remains central to natural justice. It created the absolute prohibition on pecuniary interest and influenced the broader development of bias rules in administrative law.

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of Rule against Bias — Dimes v Grand Junction Canal Co. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

OSCOLA Citation

Dimes v Grand Junction Canal Co (1852) 3 HLC 759

administrative lawnatural justicejudicial biasconstitutional lawprocedural fairness

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

LLBGDL

More Public Law cases

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v DS

[2025] UKUT 168 (AAC)

Ranpariya v Government of India

[2026] EWHC Admin 682

Modi v Government of India

[2026] EWHC Admin 716

Rupert Lowe MP, R (on the application of) v The Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme

[2026] EWHC 406 (Admin)

Robb Simms-Davies v Southwark Crown Court

[2026] EWHC 337 (Admin)

River Action UK, R (on the application of) v Water Services Regulation Authority

[2026] EWHC 586 (Admin)

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.