The 'real danger of bias' test imposes a high threshold for recusal applications, and mere dissatisfaction with a judge's prior rulings does not suffice to establish bias.

(Enclosure 165)

INTRODUCTION

[1] The defendant applied under O 92 r 4 Rules of Court 2012 (RC 2012): Inherent Powers of the Court, seeking my recusal from presiding in his Suit and other related prayers.

[2] On 17 April 2023, after perusing the cause papers and hearing the respective submissions of counsels, I dismissed encl 165 with an order for a cost of RM8,000.00 against the defendant payable within 14 days from the date of this Order. Dissatisfied, the defendant is appealing that decision. My reasons are as follows:

Brief Facts

[3] From the cause papers, the facts are:

3.1 In encl 165, filed at the eleventh hour, the defendant seeks:

(a) That as the presiding Judge in this Suit, I am to recuse myself from it;

(b) That this Suit is heard and determined before another High Court Judge; and

(c) A stay on the trial of this Suit is granted pending the determination of encl 165.

3.2 Enclosure 165 is grounded on:

(a) The defendant is a party in another suit before me in KL HC Civil Suit No: WA-22NCVC-822-12/2021 (Suit 822).

(b) In that Suit 822, the defendant had applied for my recusal, which is still pending a determination on allegations that:

(i) That I had allegedly prejudged the issue of Contempt;

(ii) There is allegedly an absence of procedural fairness;

(iii) There is allegedly a breach of natural justice.

(c) The defendant claimed:

(i) In the present Suit, he had enclosed several documents in the bundle connected to Suit 822 and other suits involving him and Tan Sri Dato' Kam Woon Wah;

(ii) The documents allegedly had already been considered by me in Suit 822, where I had granted an Order against the defendant;

(iii) Though the present Suit and Suit 822 are entirely different, there is an apparent danger of bias on my part in continuing to preside on the present Suit;

(iv) The defendant, by letter (6 April 2023), sought a stay of proceeding pending the determination of the Recusal application in Suit 822, but I had directed that ventilation of the Suit shall proceed as scheduled in the Court's diary.

Parties' Submissions

[4] In support of encl 165, the defendant argued:

4.1 Gleaned from affidavit in support (enclosure 166), the defendant's averred that:

4.1.1 The plaintiff in the present Suit had raised several issues and certain documents in the Common Bundle of Documents that had also been introduced by Tan Sri Dato' Kam Woon Wah in Suit 822 and other Suits between them.

4.1.2 Though he had raised objections to the reference to these documents and issues claiming to be irrelevant to the present Suit, the plaintiff insisted on referring to them. I take cognisance of this argument.

4.1.3 A party cannot dictate to another litigant how to prosecute his case. In any event, the Court must determine the relevancy of documents at trial and not that of the parties, though they may raise objections.

4.1.4 The defendant argued that I had in my grounds of judgment in granting an ad-interim injunction in Suit 822 restraining a s 52 Mental Health Proceeding (OS: WA-24NVCV-2619) by the defendant against Tan Sri Dato' Kam Woon Wah pending the complete determination of the merits of the application, referred to the said impugned documents.

4.1.5 The defendant appealed against that injunction in Suit 822 even though inter-parte arguments on merits were fixed to be heard on 10 March 2022 and extended to 18 March 2022:

(a) Subsequently, Tan Sri Dato' Kam Woon Wah took out a committal proceeding against the defendant in Suit 822 for intentionally misleading the Court by swearing to a wrongful residential address in his affidavits before the Court, incompliant with the Rules of the Court.

(b) I had granted leave to the applicant to commence the committal proceeding