Judicial recusal must be based on substantial grounds; mere baseless rumors do not suffice to justify a judge's withdrawal from a case.

Introduction

[1] The twenty appeals herein relate to a decision of the learned judge of the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak sitting at Sibu given on 18 January 2016 whereby the learned judge decided to recuse himself from hearing all cases and related cases involving the WTK Group of Companies, Kathryn Ma Wai Fong, Neil Wong Hou Lianq and Mimi Wong Hou Wai. All the appeals were heard together as they relate to the same recusal order.

Brief Account Of The Salient Facts

[2] For the purposes of these appeals, it is sufficient to allude to the salient facts. Of the twenty appeals herein, eleven appeals relate to applications filed by Kathryn, Neil and Mimi in respect of eleven Originating Summons ("OS") for inter alia, an order that all the OS be tried consecutively in a particular sequence and that the deponents of affidavits be cross-examined on their affidavits. On 30 March 2015, the learned judge dismissed all the applications and ordered the eleven OS to be heard jointly. Dissatisfied, Kathryn, Neil and Mimi appealed to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the learned judg

[3] On 22 October 2015, the Court of Appeal dismissed the bulk of the appeals and only allowed the appeal against the dismissal of their prayer for cross-examination of all the deponents in the eleven OS.

[4] The learned judge then scheduled the cross-examination of the deponents to be conducted on 18 January 2016 and thereafter on other dates.

[5] On 18 January 2016, when parties appeared in Court for the cross-examination of deponents in respect of the eleven OS, the learned judge informed the parties of his decision to recuse himself from hearing all cases and related cases involving the WTK Group of Companies, Kathryn, Neil and Mimi ("the Recusal Order"). The notes of proceedings recorded on 18 January 2016 read as follows:

"In light of the baseless rumours which I have heard, I feel that I am not able to make a fair and just decision in respect of the above cases which are heard jointly and also other related cases. To be fair to all parties, I am recusing myself from hearing all the cases and related cases involving WTK Group of Companies and Kathryn Ma, Neil and Mimi Wong."

[6] Three writ actions were not called up on 18 January 2016 but were also affected by the learned judges recusal decision. The parties were only informed by the Senior Assistant Registrar by e-mail that the Recusal Order also applied to the writ action. As at 18 January 2016, one writ action had already gone into 7 days of full trial and the trial was scheduled to continue on 9 May 2016 to 20 May 2016.

[7] Similarly circumstanced are six other OS which were not called up on 18 January 2016. The parties in these six OS were only informed that the Recusal Order also applied to their actions by the Senior Assistant Registrar in a subsequent e-mail.

[8] In short, the Recusal Order affects amongst others:

i. Eleven OS which were called up on 18 January 2016;

ii. Three Writ actions which were not called up on 18 January 2016; and

iii. Six OS which were not called up on 18 January 2016.

Submission

[9] The principal grounds advanced by learned counsel for the appellants may be summarised as follows:

i. The learned judge had recused himself on his own motion even though there was no application for recusal by the parties;

ii. The learned judge had taken into consideration baseless rumours which he had heard in deciding to recuse himself; and

iii. There was no real likelihood of bias or any appearance of bias to justify the learned judge in recusing himself;

[10] For the respondents, learned cou