Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

[1] In the course of hearing an application for the extension of an injunction - I presume that it was a Mareva injunction, for there is nothing in the judgment that gives any indication as to what kind of injunction it was - Ian Chin J, made a remark about the quality of the defence delivered by the respondents (the 2nd to the 9th defendants in the Court below). I will advert to the remark in a moment. It led to the respondents making an application to disqualify the learned Judge from hearing the trial of the action. He acceded to their request; but, as will appear later, not for any of the reasons advanced by the respondents. The appellant (the plaintiff in the Court below) being dissatisfied with the decision of the learned Judge appelaed to this Court.

[2] This is what the learned Judge said in relation to one of the issues raised in the respondents' defence:

Mr Sugumar Balakrishnan next argued that the plaintiff does not have a good arguable case. It will be recalled that the plaintiff's case is that through the fraud or conspiracy of the defendants or the breach of trust or fiduciary duty of the 1st defendant the defendants have profited from the RM7,