JUDGMENT

Low Hop Bing J:

Application

[1] Before me is the notice of motion in encl. (33) filed by applicants 2 and 3 (collectively, "the applicants") seeking the following reliefs:

(1) that I be recused from hearing the substantive notice of motion in encl (23) ("the substantive motion") seeking, inter alia, certiorari ;

(2) that respondents 1 to 5, jointly and severally, pay to the applicants all the costs in encl (33); and

(3) such other reliefs as the court deems fit.

Grounds Of Application

[2] As closely as possible, I shall adhere to the gist of the grounds stated by the applicants' solicitors in encl (33). These grounds are:

(1) I have in my judgment in Tang Kwor Ham & Ors v. Pengurusan Danaharta Nasional Bhd & Ors[2003] 2 MLRH 601, [2003] 4 MLJ 332 decided as follows:

In my view, having regard to the factual background as alluded to above, as apparent from the affidavits and statement of the applicants, I hold that in relation to this application for judicial review, there is no arguable case.

("my judgment");

(2) I have personal (own or self) interest in that the success of the substantive motion would constitute a "repudiation of" my judgment; conversely its failure (on the basis of no arguable case) would constitute a vindication of my judgment;

(3) I have a "conflict of interests" in that my personal (own or self) interest stated in ground (2) above is in conflict with the applicants' interest (in the success of the substantive motion);

(4) Under the law, I am automatically disqualified or recused from hearing the substantive motion;

(5) Alternatively, there is "a real danger of bias" on my part in the sense that I might unfairly regard with disfavour the case of the applicants to the issue under consideration; and

(6) A "fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there is a real possibility" that I am biased; or alternatively "give rise to a reasonable apprehension or suspicion on the part of a fair-minded and informed member of the public".

[3] The affidavit in support (encl (34)) was affirmed by deponent Tang Sheit Fun (applicant 3) who in paras 3 to 5 thereof had parroted all the grounds contained in encl (33), while paras 6 and 7 thereof referred to my judgment and, on appeal, the judgments of the court of Appeal, in Tang Kwor Ham & Ors v. Pengurusan Danaharta Nasional Bhd & Ors, [2006] 5 MLJ 60 CA .

Factual Background

[4] A reference to an order and a rule hereinafter is a reference to that order and rule in the Rules of the High court 1980 unless otherwise stated.

[5] Pursuant to the application in encl (11) filed by, inter alia, the applicants under O. 53 r. 3 , seeking leave for judicial review, I have delivered my judgment against which the applicants have filed an appeal ("the appeal").

[6] The court of Appeal in a majority judgment (2-1) allowed the applicants' appeal with costs. In setting aside all the orders contained in my judgment, Gopal Sri Ram JCA (with the concurrence of Hashim Yusoff JCA) in para 64 of the majority judgment at pp 966 and 967 made the following specific order:

I would remit this matter to the court below so that it may be proceeded with in the ordinary way. The applicants shall file their substantive motion within 14 days from today and serve a copy of the same (after extraction) on the respondents. We will now fix this matter for mention before the High court at Melaka on a mutually convenient date with a direction to expeditiously dispose of this matter.

Zaleha Zahari JCA in delivering the dissenting judgment in para 103 at p. 976 held that I was right in concluding that there was no arguable case. In para 105 thereof her Ladyship dismissed the applicants' appeal with costs.

[7] Pursuant to the majority judgment, the applicants had on 7 November 2005 filed the substantive motion which had been fixed for hearing on 5 December 2005.

[8] On 5 December 2005, when the matter was called before me, all parties were represented by their respective learned counsel, inc