Chiong Hoe Kean 1. ) Chiong Hoe Keat 2. ) Alliance Bank Malaysia Berhad

Chiong Hoe Kean 1. ) Chiong Hoe Keat 2. ) Alliance Bank Malaysia Berhad

Applicant failed to establish the objective test of a real danger of bias; the impugned directions were legitimate exercises of case management discretion in light of the applicant's repeated non-compliance and procedural irregularities, and there was no evidence of partiality beyond ordinary adverse rulings.

Citation
BA-22NCvC-221-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (suit 221); 2nd Defendant (suit 16): Chiong Hoe Kean; 1st Defendant (suit 221 and Suit 16): Chiong Hoe Keat; 2nd Defendant (suit 221); Plaintiff (suit 16): Alliance Bank Malaysia Berhad; 3rd Defendant (suit 16): Zhang Jia Birdnest Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 April 2025
Case Number
BA-22NCvC-221-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil (consolidated Actions) / Pre Trial/case Management With Recusal Application Heard and Dismissed
Outcome
Recusal application (Enclosure 82) dismissed
Legal Topics
Recusal, Consolidation of Actions, Case Management, Strike Out, Personal Guarantee, Forgery Allegation, Unless Order, Expert Evidence Timelines
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Banking Law Contract Law Judicial Recusal/administration of Justice Evidence (experts) Recusal Consolidation of Actions Case Management +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chiong Hoe Kean

Plaintiff (suit 221); 2nd Defendant (suit 16)

Chiong Hoe Keat

1st Defendant (suit 221 and Suit 16)

Alliance Bank Malaysia Berhad

2nd Defendant (suit 221); Plaintiff (suit 16)

Zhang Jia Birdnest Sdn Bhd

3rd Defendant (suit 16)

Procedural Posture

Civil (consolidated Actions) / Pre Trial/case Management With Recusal Application Heard and Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge should be recused for real danger of bias
  2. 2 Whether consolidation directions and designation of leading action were improper
  3. 3 Whether procedural directions including filing of consolidated CBOD and unless order were unfair or biased

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to establish the objective test of a real danger of bias; the impugned directions were legitimate exercises of case management discretion in light of the applicant's repeated non-compliance and procedural irregularities, and there was no evidence of partiality beyond ordinary adverse rulings.

Court Disposition

Recusal application (Enclosure 82) dismissed

Orders

  • Dismissed application Enclosure 82 (recusal)
  • Enclosure 48 dismissed with costs in the cause