Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bias

Legal area

Court

13 Feb 2026

MENTERI SUMBER MANUSIA MALAYSIA 1. ) National Union of Bank Employees (NUBE) 2. ) KETUA PENGARAH PERHUBUNGAN PERUSAHAAN 3. ) MALAYAN COMMERCIAL BANKS' ASSOCIATION 4. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA 5. ) Jabatan Peguam Negara PIHAK TERKILAN 1

Citation

WA-25-291-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-291-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Minister's referrals to the Industrial Court were quashed because there was no admissible evidence that the Director General had considered the parties' agreed internal settlement mechanism and formed the requisite opinion under ss.18(4) and 26(3) IRA 1967; additionally the Minister's intervention and support for an inferior ex-gratia package demonstrated bias and procedural impropriety rendering the referrals unreasonable and unlawful.
4 Jul 2025

Tommy Thomas @ Mohan A/L K. Thomas Sharil @ Shahrir Bin Ab Samad

Citation

W-01(IM)(NCvC)-28-01/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-01(IM)(NCvC)-28-01/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Applying the objective real danger of bias test, the Court of Appeal found the High Court judge's written grounds contained erroneous summaries and evaluative statements that went beyond pleadings and evidence, which a fair-minded informed bystander could view as demonstrating prejudgment; therefore the appeal was allowed and the judge was ordered to recuse from all future proceedings and trial in Suit 86.
11 Jun 2025

Tan Kheng Guan (Mendakwa Bagi Pihak Dirinya Sendiri Dan Pemegang Saham Syarikat Ketiga Shigen Polycolor Sdn. Bhd., Selain Daripada Pertama Dan Kedua) 1. ) CHU KOK KHING 2. ) EE GENG CHOON 3. ) SHIGEN POLYCOLOR SDN BHD 4. ) SHIFTY TECHNOLOGY

Citation

PA-22NCvC-223-11/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-223-11/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applying the objective real‑danger test, the court found the judge's interventions were authorised by Section 165 to clarify evasive testimony and did not amount to advocacy, prejudgment or personal remarks; the Court of Appeal observation was not a conclusive finding requiring recusal; therefore the defendants failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias and the recusal application was dismissed.
13 May 2025

TETUAN NADZARIN KUOK PUTHUCHEARY & TAN 1. ) NURO DAGANG SDN. BHD. 2. ) MUHAMAD AZMI BIN OTHMAN 3. ) MOKHTAR BIN OTHMAN

Citation

WA-A72NCvC-4758-11/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A72NCvC-4758-11/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The recusal application (Lampiran 141) is dismissed because (a) the application was academic as the relevant interlocutory matters and hearing dates had been vacated or decided, (b) defendants failed to demonstrate a 'real danger of bias' under the applicable test, (c) the application was filed with undue delay and (d) the magistrate's comments were routine case-management observations and not evidence of partiality; costs RM1,500 awarded to the respondent.
29 Nov 2024

1. ) Elaine Gay Chow Song 2. ) Kwan Hung Cheong 1. ) Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia (SSM) 2. ) Zung Zang Trading Sdn Bhd (dahulunya dikenali sebagai Zung Zang Wood Products Sdn Bhd) 3. ) Zung Zang Holdings Sdn Bhd 4. ) Selvarani a/p Marimuth

Citation

WA-22NCC-523-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-523-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The recusal application failed because the Judge acted within his judicial and case management powers by identifying preliminary legal issues under Order 33 r.2, only formed provisional views open to challenge, afforded the Plaintiffs opportunity to file submissions but they failed to do so, and no reasonable, informed observer would apprehend a real danger of bias; accordingly recusal and stay applications were dismissed and costs ordered forthwith.
11 Nov 2022

IPI SDN BHD 1. ) IPI GRAPHIC SYSTEMS SDN BHD 2. ) HENTRY VIENSION A/L A. MUNIANDY 3. ) TAN LAY KAH 4. ) DANIEL A/L MUTHUSAMY 5. ) CHONG HIN YOON

Citation

BL-22NCvC-8-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-22NCvC-8-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff failed to establish on a balance of probabilities any real and apparent danger of bias; mere acquaintance or uncorroborated statements about social interactions do not disqualify a judge; therefore the recusal application is dismissed and costs awarded.
2 Sept 2021

MUHAMMAD IZMER BIN YUSOF [NO. K/P: 820623-09-5151] ABDUL RAHMAN BIN HASIM [NO. K/P: 821014-09-5089

Citation

RA-12A-2-05-2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

RA-12A-2-05-2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The impugned paragraph 11 was an adverse comment and reason for allowing the defendant’s application to set aside the default judgment based on the defendant’s affidavit and lack of particulars; it did not constitute a prejudgment of the main defamation trial or create a real danger of bias. The appellant failed to adduce cogent evidence to rebut the presumption of judicial impartiality; appeal dismissed with costs RM5,000.00.
4 Aug 2021

CHELVARAJAN A/L R.SUPPIAH 1. ) South Asia Growth Sdn Bhd 2. ) MAJLIS PEGUAM MALAYSIA

Citation

N-02(A)-1060-06/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

N-02(A)-1060-06/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held there was no appellable error by the High Court; LTPP complied with s.103D(4) and afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard; no evidence of bias or procedural prejudice; the committee's findings were within the scope of the complaint and the omission to frame a formal charge was not fatal; appeal dismissed.
9 Mar 2021

DELEUM PRIMERA SDN BHD (Co. No.: 201101035757 (963891-W)) 1. MAZRIN BIN RAMLI (NRIC NO: 800410-07-5079) 2. KHAIRULAZMI BIN MOHAMAD KARUDIN (NRIC NO: 770331-07-5025) 3. NOOR AZLINA BINTI ZAKARIA (NRIC NO: 830508-02-5210) 4. MUHAMMAD HAFIZ BI

Citation

WA-22NCC-544-11/2020 (No. 2) (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

No. 2
Case number

WA-22NCC-544-11/2020 (No. 2) (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The recusal applications failed because the applicants did not satisfy the 'real danger of bias' test; the judge's interactions with counsel (raising issues, referring to authorities, and accepting undertakings) were legitimate judicial functions evidenced in the court record; un‑affirmed affidavits were used with leave and an undertaking to regularise; the applications were frivolous and dismissed with costs against counsel personally.
1 Jan 1900

1. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB KUMPULAN SOKONGAN (NO. 1) JABATAN PERLINDUNGAN HIDUPAN LIAR DAN TAMAN NEGARA 2. ) LEMBAGA RAYUAN TATATERTIB PERKHIDMATAN AWAM 3. ) SURUHANJAYA PERKHIDMATAN AWAM 4. ) KETUA PENGARAH, JABATAN PERLINDUNGAN HIDUPAN LIAR

Citation

W-01(A)-422-08/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A)-422-08/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal because the High Court relied on a bias ground that was not pleaded and not supported by affidavit evidence; the appellants provided affidavit explanation that the disciplinary process complied with the 1993 Regulations; reinstatement and return of authorization under s50 is a discretionary administrative matter for the Department and not for the court to impose; accordingly the High Court decision quashing the disciplinary outcome was set aside.