A judge's familial relationship must be substantial to justify recusal; preliminary judicial comments do not imply bias.

Introduction

[1] In the action before this Court, the plaintiff claims for inter alia services rendered whereas the defendant counter-claims for inter alia unsatisfactory works provided. Underlying the dispute is whether there is a concluded contract between the parties. The action had undergone two days of trial in February 2023 before Justice Ahmad Bache. On 1 March 2023, Justice Su Tiang Joo ("Justice Su") was transferred to this Court with Justice Ahmad Bache transferred to the Criminal Division.

[2] Justice Su had at the first case management of the case before him on 17 March 2023 made disclosure to learned Counsel for both parties that one of his nieces is related by marriage to the son of one of the principal officers who is connected to the defendant company. To what extent, Justice Su was not clear. This was made clear in an affidavit (Encl 53 para 8(b)) affirmed on behalf of the defendant company that this principal officer is a co-founder of the defendant company but does not hold the role of Chairman contrary to the assertion made by the plaintiff. Learned Counsel for both parties was told that Justice Su had taken the Constitutional Oath of office and that the familial relationship was not close.

[3] During the case management on 29 March 2023, Justice Su informed both the learned Counsel that he has no financial dealings at all with this principal officer and the defendant company. Nevertheless, learned Counsel for the plaintiff requested for Justice Su to recuse himself. However, learned Counsel for the defendant said it will be remiss of him if he does not object and will respond as and when an application for recusal is filed. Five dates in November 2023, March and April 2024 were then taken for continued trial. Thereafter, a formal recusal application (Encl 50) was filed with an added prayer that in the interim all proceedings be stayed ("Recusal Application").

[4] After hearing the parties, I dismissed the Recusal Application and these are the grounds of judgment for the decision made.

Recusal Application (Enclosure 50)

[5] The Recusal Application is grounded upon the assertions contained in the plaintiff's affidavit in support (Encl 51) affirmed by Devin Nair Sekaran Nair who is the Chief Executive Officer of the plaintiff ("Devin Nair"), and a further affidavit in support (Encl 52) affirmed by Sumita Gnanarajah, an Advocate & Solicitor and who is the learned Counsel for the plaintiff. The defendant filed an affidavit in response (Encl 53) deposed by Prakash Selvaratnam, which elicited a reply by way of an affidavit affirmed by Devin Nair (Encl 54).

[6] Besides asserting the existence of a familial relationship, the plaintiff asserted that Justice Su had sought to see the representatives of the plaintiff in person and that he has taken a keen interest in the action because immediately after his transfer, and before the trial has re-commenced, Justice Su has read the file. The defendant opposed the Recusal Application.

[7] Written submissions were filed by the plaintiff (Encl 61) and by the defendant (Encl 60) with oral submissions presented by both learned Counsel for the plaintiff and defendant on 27 July 2023.

Court's Analysis And Findings

(i) Obligation To Resist Temptation To Recuse

[8] lt is a fundamental principle that a Judge should resist the temptation to yiel