The test for recusal focuses on the existence of a real danger of bias, not a mere likelihood, and past associations deemed too remote do not warrant recusal.

[1] The Court is mindful of the test to be applied in an application to recuse a judge namely, whether there is a real danger of bias and not merely whether there is a real likelihood of bias if the judge were to continue with the case.

Brief Chronology Of Events

17 January 2005 - The 3rd respondent sought the removal of the appellant as the liquidator of the 2nd respondent. The application was supported by the 4th, 5th and 6th respondents.

14 September 2011 - Some six years later there was a first hearing of the removal application before Hamid Sultan J.

20 October 2011 - Case fixed for clarification/decision but was postponed to 31 October 2011 as the 3rd respondent's counsel was on medical leave.

25 October 2011 - Counsel for appellant wrote to judge inviting him to recuse himself to "avoid danger of bisness business".

31 October 2011 - Counsel met judge in chambers. Appellant's counsel made an oral application for recusal but was rejected by the judge. Judge refused a postponement to enable the appellant's counsel to file a formal application. Judge proceeded to deliver judgment in the removal of liquidator application.

Appellant's Grounds For Recusal

2002 - The partnership of Hamid Sultan & Rakan-Rakan of which the judge was a partner, went into dissolution. Loga Chitra with the consent of judge filed an originating summons against two other partners Syed Mubarak and Francis Peters. The split was described as acrimonious.

30 September 2002 - On request of the parties, the Bar Council appointed Messrs KK San, Liew & Loke as the receiver & manager (R & M) of the firm.

24 October 2002 - Ms Wong of KK San, Liew & Loke accepted the appointment. In her report Ms Wong found that the judge had overdrawn the account by about RM160,000 as at 31 February 2003. Loga Chitra and the judge disputed Ms Wong's findings. Loga Chitra with the consent of the judge then commenced a writ action against Ms Wong and Messrs KK San, Liew & Loke.

22 June 2003 - The writ of summons was struck off as no leave was obtained.

[2] In essence, the main ground for recusal was that the judge had engaged in litigation with Ms Wong and Messrs KK San, Liew & Loke of which the appellant was a partner.

[3] Appellant's counsel reiterated that the split in the partnership was acrimonious.

Submission Of Appellant's Counsel

(i) There is a real danger of bias by the judge.

(ii) Immaterial that the judge was not aware that the appellant was a partner in Messrs KK San, Liew & Loke together with Ms Wong.

(iii) A recusal application no matter how late, must be entertained.

(iv) Judge abdicated his responsibility to consider the test of real danger of bias.

(v) The "direction" of the managing judge to proceed with the judgement was wholly irrelevant.

(vi) Timing and costs are not the determinative legal factors.

Grounds Of Decision Of The Court

[4] There was no apparent bias and there was no real danger of bias by the judge as the reason for recusal was too remote. The purported grounds for recusal did not raise any suspicion of bias because:

(i) Dissolution of partnership took place in 2002 - about 10 years ago.

(ii) Judge was wholly unaware that the appellant was a partner in Messrs KK San, Liew & Loke together with Ms Wong at the material time.

(iii) Judge was not aware of the position on the status of the appellant until the letter dated 25 October 2011 was sent to him by appellant's counsel, ie if not for the letter, he would not have known. It will be noted that the plaintiff in this case is Chuah Seong Phaik of Messrs Paul Chuah & Co.

(iv) The judge was ready to deliver his judgment by 20 October 2011 but had to postpone it to 31 October 2011 as the 3rd respondent's counsel was ill. At the same time and as a result of the postponement on 20 October 2011 the judge asked parties for further research to be made on whether delay by a liquidator in the performance of h