Raman Dhir v MCST Plan No 1374

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 23 April 2021
• Docket Number: Registrar's Appeal from the State Courts No 2 of 2021 (Summons No 624 of 2021)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Raman Dhir

and

Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1374

[2021] SGHC 99

Choo Han Teck J

Registrar's Appeal from the State Courts No 2 of 2021 (Summons No 624 of 2021)

General Division of the High Court

Constitutional Law — Natural justice — Bias — Application by counsel for judge to recuse himself from hearing appeal — Whether apparent bias present — Whether history between judge and counsel required judge to recuse himself — Whether application involved complaint by one party against judge's conduct of his case

Held, dismissing the application:

(1) The enmity, if at all, was only one-sided. Neither the appellant nor the respondent was known to Choo J and he had no personal interest in the matter in dispute. As for apparent bias, a judge should not recuse himself from hearing counsel just because counsel had complained against him: at [6] and [7].

(2) It was amusing, but not true, that Ms Tan believed Choo J had decided not to hear further arguments in 2007 because CJ Chan was called away to the Pedra Branca dispute. In any event, Ms Tan had appeared before Choo J on other occasions after that without any objections: at [8].

(3) Ms Tan cited Wendy Ann El-Farargy v Nael Mahmoud El Farargy[2007] EWCA Civ 1149 (“El-Farargy”), but, unlike that case, this case did not concern a complaint by a party to an action against the judge's conduct of his case. It was not alleged that Choo J had ever made “mocking and disparaging” remarks to Ms Tan like those made in El-Farargy, which would give “an appearance to the fair-minded and informed observer that there was a real possibility the judge would carry into his judgment the scorn and contempt” his words conveyed: at [12].

(4) With regard to Ms Tan's letter of 2007, the court held that it had nothing to do with the appellant in this case in any event. Nothing turned on that letter so far as that case was concerned, nor in any other cases where Ms Tan subsequently appeared before Choo J. No apology or forgiveness was necessary because no offence was taken: at [13].

Case(s) referred to

Blenwel Agencies Pte Ltd v Tan Lee King [2008] 2 SLR(R) 529; [2008] 2 SLR 529 (refd)

Wendy Ann El-Farargy v Nael Mahmoud El Farargy [2007] EWCA Civ 1149 (distd)

Facts

The appellant's appeal was fixed before Justice Choo Han Teck (“Choo J”). Counsel for the appellant, Ms Carolyn Tan (“Ms Tan”), filed Summons No 624 of 2021 (“SUM 624”) for Choo J to recuse himself from hearing the appeal. She also requested that Choo J recuse himself from hearing his own recusal application. Ms Tan said she had appeared before Choo J in a different case in September 2007 and was refused leave to appeal. After his decision in that case on 27 September 2007, Ms Tan wrote to the Registry on 28 September 2007 to request leave to present further arguments, copying Choo J and the then Chief Justice, Chan Sek Keong CJ (“CJ Chan”). On 5 October 2007, Choo J informed the Registry to notify Ms Tan he would not be hearing further arguments. Ms Tan argued that Choo J decided not to hear further arguments in that case because CJ Chan had been called away to the Pedra Branca dispute, and a reasonable and fair-minded reader might think that following CJ Chan's departure, Choo J revoked...