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

2016 MarsdenLR 2554

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
GLOMAC RESOURCES SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN & ANOR – Respondent


Table of Content
1. application for recusal due to past association. (Para 1 , 5 , 16 , 26)
2. court observations on potential bias and recusal implications. (Para 2 , 4 , 6 , 22 , 23)
3. arguments addressing judicial conduct and applications for recusal. (Para 8 , 12 , 20 , 30)
4. establishing standards for determining real danger of bias. (Para 24 , 25 , 41)
S Nantha Balan J:

Introduction

[1] These are my grounds in respect of an application for recusal by the 1st defendant (encl 31). The imperative question that arises in the context of the recusal application is whether the fact that the presiding judge and counsel appearing for one of the parties were partners in the same law firm more than a decade ago, is a ground for disqualification/recusal of the presiding judge.

Request For Recusal

[2] The matter was fixed for trial on 22 March 2016 and 23 March 2016. The issue of recusal was brought up orally in open court on the morning of 22 March 2016 when the 1st defendants counsel referred to a letter dated 21 March 2016 issued by Messrs Zulkifli Yong Azmi & Co to the plaintiffs solicitors, Messrs Mohanadass Partnership. The letter was sent on the eve of the trial, ie on 21 March 2016 and i

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