1 Oct 2025
The defendant failed to demonstrate a real danger of bias: the JC's mother is a tenant not associated with the case under s.7(2) Judges' Code of Ethics 2009, there was no evidence the mother expressed views or influenced the JC, therefore recusal is not justified and the application is dismissed.
4 Jul 2025
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.
13 May 2025
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.
17 Apr 2023
Defendant failed to satisfy the 'real danger of bias' test; allegations were speculative and based on interim observations in related proceedings rather than evidence showing disqualifying bias; recusal would amount to judge-shopping and abuse of process; accordingly recusal application (enclosure 165) was dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff (RM8,000 payable within 14 days).
23 Aug 2022
The application failed because it did not establish a real danger of bias: the spouse's Facebook post was remote in time and lacked nexus to these appeals, third‑party views cannot be imputed to the judge absent evidence of impact, the Bar Council letter did not amount to a directive creating bias, and the application was mala fide and intended to delay; accordingly recusal was not warranted.
26 Oct 2021
Applying the 'real danger of bias' test to all circumstances the court found no sufficient evidence of personal or extrajudicial bias: prior decision in the related Setia Haruman matter and administrative reasons for deciding it did not establish a real danger of bias in subsequent matters; the plaintiff's conduct (failing to seek a stay and participating in proceedings) further undermined the claim; accordingly recusal was not justified and applications were dismissed.
9 Mar 2021
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.
17 Jul 2020
The Federal Court held that the Court of Appeal misapplied the law and that there was no real danger of bias warranting recusal. A trial judge is not required to recuse merely because a co-accused pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced; the guilty plea is not automatically admissible against another accused and impartiality can be maintained. The 'real danger of bias' test requires a real possibility of bias, not an unduly low threshold.
12 Feb 2020
Appellate court allowed the appeal and ordered a retrial before another judge because objectively there was a real danger of bias: the trial judge had accepted the co-accused's guilty plea and considered the facts and exhibits which could not be treated as effaced from his mind, creating a real possibility of unfair regard against the appellant despite the judge's declaration of impartiality.
1 Jan 1900
The defendants failed to substantiate a real danger of bias under the established legal test; the allegations were unfounded or misconceived as demonstrated by court records and contemporaneous explanations, therefore the recusal application was dismissed.