HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
GLOMAC RESOURCES SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN & ANOR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for recusal due to past association. (Para 1 , 5 , 16 , 26) |
| 2. court observations on potential bias and recusal implications. (Para 2 , 4 , 6 , 22 , 23) |
| 3. arguments addressing judicial conduct and applications for recusal. (Para 8 , 12 , 20 , 30) |
| 4. establishing standards for determining real danger of bias. (Para 24 , 25 , 41) |
Introduction
[1] These are my grounds in respect of an application for recusal by the 1st defendant (encl 31). The imperative question that arises in the context of the recusal application is whether the fact that the presiding judge and counsel appearing for one of the parties were partners in the same law firm more than a decade ago, is a ground for disqualification/recusal of the presiding judge.
Request For Recusal
[2] The matter was fixed for trial on 22 March 2016 and 23 March 2016. The issue of recusal was brought up orally in open court on the morning of 22 March 2016 when the 1st defendants counsel referred to a letter dated 21 March 2016 issued by Messrs Zulkifli Yong Azmi & Co to the plaintiffs solicitors, Messrs Mohanadass Partnership. The letter was sent on the eve of the trial, ie on 21 March 2016 and i
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.