The application for recusal was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of bias, affirming that prior professional relationships do not inherently necessitate recusal unless substantial grounds exist.

[1] This is the Court's ruling on the Plaintiffs application (Encl 99) to recuse me from continuing to hear this matter.

[2] The Plaintiffs application is premised on the contention that there exists a real danger of bias, as I had previously undergone annual health screenings at the 3rd Defendant's hospital (Pantai Medical Centre Kuala Lumpur) specifically at the Health Screening Centre located in the Main Block, where the 4th Defendant (Dr Sanjiv Joshi Hari Chand) was one of the many doctors on duty on the day. The 4th Defendant was limited to interpreting the stress test results.

This Application

[3] The Plaintiff submitted that this circumstance creates an awkwardness, warranting my recusal. The authorities cited by the Plaintiff carry very distinguishing features namely the Federal Court case of Dato' Tan Heng Chew v. Tan Kim Hor & Another Appeal 2006 MarsdenLR 2406 ; 2006 MarsdenLR 2918 ; where the facts of the case there involved a High Court Judge who had made detailed findings against the respondent and concluded that it was not corporate mismanagement but instead, the respondent's petition to wind up was motivated by personal grievances during the appellant's application to strike out the respondent's said petition. Whilst that was pending appeal at the Court of Appeal, the respondent had filed a suit seeking declaratory reliefs that his non-appointment was wrongful. The respondent's suit ended before the same High Court Judge hence the respondent's application for recusal. There were also pending contempt proceedings against the respondent. The High Court Judge had refused to recuse herself, but the Court of Appeal had overturned that decision. Reference was made to the Federal Court that confirmed the objective test of whether there was a real danger of bias on the part of the High Court Judge if she were to continue to try the suit. The Federal Court ruled clearly that each case was to be decided on its own facts and courts should be vigilant not to allow parties to do "judge-shopping" by recusal of judges. Back to the facts of the case at hand, there has been no ruling against the favour of the Plaintiff involving the 4th Defendant.

[4] The Plaintiff had also referred to the Court of Appeal's decision in Mcgirvanmedia (Asia) Sdn Bhd v. HSS Integrated Sdn Bhd [Civil Appeal No: W-02-(IM)(NCvC)-1740-10/2023 that reversed the High Court Judge's decision in Mcgirvanmedia (Asia) Sdn Bhd v. HSS Integrated Sdn Bhd [2024] 1 MLRH 533; [2024] 9 MLJ 13; [2023] 10 CLJ 977 not to recuse himself as the familial ties were too remote. The High Court Judge's niece was related by marriage to the son of one of the principal officers who was connected to the defendant company. There are no grounds of judgment by the Court of Appeal but it is glaring in this case that there are no familial ties whatsoever between the 4th Defendant and me.

[5] The Defendants strongly oppose the application, contending that there is not an iota of evidence even to suggest a real likelihood or real danger of bias. On 8 October 2024, during the continuation of the trial when I disclosed that I had attended health screenings at Pantai Medical Centre, a hospital operated by the 3rd Defendant. The annual health screenings involved a variety of doctors and believed that the 4th Defendant was one amongst the many that I had seen. I clearly stated that I was comfortable to carry on hearing this case as I have no pecuniary interest or familial relationship with the 4th Defendant. I further stated that there was no danger of bias and that any findings that I would make