Wellington, July 3 NZPA - The Supreme Court has cleared a former Appeal Court judge, Bill Wilson, over allegations of potential bias in a case in which he ruled in favour of the Wool Board.

The board was represented by Alan Galbraith QC, a co-owner of land on which he and Justice Wilson provided grazing for race horses.

The case is important because if the appeal had succeeded, there would have been an appearance of a miscarriage of justice in one of the nation's highest courts.

Since the Appeal Court decision, Justice Wilson has been appointed a Supreme Court judge.

Woolgrowers fighting a bitter rearguard action, after their bid for a share of money from the deregulated Wool Board was rejected by Justice Wilson, were given Supreme Court leave to make a further appeal on grounds of the relationship they alleged between the judge and the QC.

Peter Radford, owner of Saxmere Co Ltd, and Escorial Co Ltd, Richard King, Russell Stewart Emmerson and Forest Range Ltd claimed Justice Wilson faced a potential conflict of interest in the case he heard.

Mr Radford has been behind a long-running series of lawsuits -- reported to have cost the parties involved over $1 million -- stemming from claims the Wool Board refused to recognise or fund saxon as a type of wool separate to other merino fibre.

Today's ruling means the saxon farmers will have to pay the Wool Board Disestablishment Company (DisCo) another $15,000, plus "reasonable disbursements".

The Supreme Court held that a "fair-minded lay observer" would reasonably understand that Justice Wilson brought an impartial mind to his judgment.

The woolgrowers failed to show a logical connection between the judge's friendship and business association with Mr Galbraith, and the possibility that he did not decide the case on its merits.

There was no connection between the subject of the case and the judge's business interest in a horse stud, the Supreme Court said.

And there was no suggestion the judge was actually motivated by any bias -- but rather a question of appearances.

Justice Wilson had no shareholding or directorship in the stud's operating company, and involvement with Mr Galbraith was restricted to a jointly owned company which owned part of the land of the stud and itself bred one or two horses a year. There were also three small broodmare partnerships, the Supreme Court said.

The result of the Appeal Court case could have had no financial impact on Mr Galbraith or on the affairs of the stud, and an objective observer would not have found any logical reason for Justice Wilson to have unconsciously favoured Mr Galbraith's arguments.

Each of the five Supreme Court judges - Justices Peter Blanchard, Andrew Tipping, John McGrath, Tom Gault, and Noel Anderson -- separately gave their reasons for rejecting the appeal in the 48-page decision.

NZPA WGT kca rq nb