Judicial Commissioners must adhere to the principle of judicial independence; perceived bias claims require substantial evidence, not mere speculation.

JUDGMENT

Christopher Chin Soo Yin JC:

Background

[1] The plaintiffs filed their Writ (encl 1 - 21 November 2019) and a Statement of Claim (encl 2 - 21 November 2019). The defendant entered appearance and filed its defence (encl 6 - 6 December 2019).

[2] On 6 December 2019, the defendant filed a Notice of Application (encl 7) seeking to stay all proceedings pending its application to have a case transmitted to the Federal Court under s 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 .

[3] The defendant wrote to the Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak (CJSS) on 6 December 2019 and on 11 December 2019 seeking that I be substituted with a High Court Judge of the High Court of Kuching to hear these series of cases.

[4] On 20 December 2019, the defendant filed a Notice of Application (encl 18) seeking that I be recused from these proceedings.

[5] I heard the parties in chambers on 13 January 2020 and fixed the ruling of encl 18 to be on 23 January 2020.

Decision

[6] Having considered the submissions and arguments of the parties, I conclude that in the circumstances of this case in particular, there is no real or perceived danger of bias on my part by virtue of being a Judicial Commissioner and I therefore dismiss the defendant's application to recuse me from hearing the matters fixed in High Court 2, of the Kuching High Court. My reasons follow.

Judicial Recusal

[7] At the Induction Course conducted by the Judicial Academy prior to taking our oath as a Judicial Commissioners in April 2019, we were lectured on "judicial recusal" by Idrus Harun FCJ. The following are excerpts from the learned FCJ's paper, and for which I offer my profound thanks to Tan Sri:

A judge may recuse himself when a party applies for him to do so and he must step down in circumstances where there appears to be actual or apparent bias [Judicial Recusal: Masood Ahmad, University of Leicester, The Law School Gazette]

To reiterate the point, all judges are bound to apply the law as they understand it to the facts of the individual cases as they find them. They must do so without fear or favour, affection or ill will, that is partiality or prejudice. A judge should not concern himself with or allow himself to be affected or influenced by all considerations extraneous to the particular case.

[8] And I find clear and unequivocal guidance in the additional words of Idrus Harun FCJ:

It is a fundamental principle that a judge should resist the temptation to yield to the pressure to recuse himself if there is no valid or sufficient ground for recusal. In law, any party seeking disqualification must establish the circumstances and situations to justify the disqualification of the judge [Che Minah Remeli v. Pentadbir Tanah Pejabat Tanah Besut Terengganu & Ors, [2008] 5 MLJ 206. Judges enjoy a presumption of impartiality in the performance of their judicial functions. However, such presumption is rebuttable, but only with cogent evidence and in appropriate cases that he may recuse himself. This proposition has found favour with local cases which in summary show that the law will not suppose a possibility of bias in a judge who is sworn to administer impartial justice and whose authority greatly depends on that presumption and idea [Hock Hua Bank (Sabah) Berhad v. Yong Liuk Thin & Ors; 1995 MarsdenLR 40 ; [1995] 2 CLJ 900; [1995] 2 AMR 1332; Dato' See Teow Chuan & Ors v. Ooi Woon Chee & Ors And Another Application; [2013] 4 MLJ 351; [2013] 4 CLJ 922; [2013] 3 AMR 741.

Section 5 of the Judges' Code of Ethics 2009 admonishes judges, in the exercise of their judicial functions, to act independently on the basis of his assessment of the facts and in accordance with his understanding of the law, free from extraneous influence, inducement, pressure, threats or interference, direct or indirect from any quarter or for any reason.

[Emphasis Added]

The Defendant's Arguments (Outlined In Enclosure 38)

[9] The defendant's counsel took pains to assert that it is not their intention to cast any aspersions against m