SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 MarsdenLR 1755

HIGH COURT MALAYA, MELAKA
TANG KWOR HAM – Appellant
Versus
PENGURUS DANAHARTA NASIONAL BHD & ORS (NO 2) – Respondent


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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top