Samarasinghe v. Samarasinghe – sllr 1991 volume 1 page 259

The case between Samarasinhge (plaintiff) and Samarasinhge (defendant) addressed the issue of alleged judicial bias during matrimonial proceedings that initially began as an action for judicial separation and was amended to a divorce action. The court held that adverse procedural rulings or mere delays do not amount to judicial bias unless it is shown that the exercise of judicial discretion was capricious or unreasonable, reaffirming the principle that bias must be real, not speculative or based solely on dissatisfaction with decisions. Reliance was placed on established precedents including Cottle v. Cottle, Queen v. Huggins, and Metropolitan Properties Co. v. Lannon, emphasizing that the test is whether actions of the trial judge manifest a real likelihood of bias. The application for b