Re Wee Soon Kim Anthony

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tay Yong Kwang J
• Judgment Date: 08 May 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] SGHC 66
• Year: 2007
• Published date: 04 July 2007
• Citation: [2007] SGHC 66
• Plaintiff Counsel: Plaintiff appearing in person
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

8 May 2007

Tay Yong Kwang J:

Background facts

1 In 2002 and 2003, Kan Ting Chiu J (“Kan J”) sat as the trial judge in Suit No 834 of 2001 (“S 834”) in which the present applicant (“Mr Anthony Wee”) was the plaintiff and UBS AG (“UBS”) was the defendant. On 8 Dec 2003, Kan J dismissed S 834 with costs (see [2003] SGHC 305]. Mr Anthony Wee appealed against the dismissal of his action in CA No. 1 of 2004. On 27 May 2004, the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal with costs (see [2004] SGCA 33). In both S 834 and CA No. 1 of 2004, Mr Anthony Wee was represented by the late Mr Lim Chor Pee and UBS was represented by Mr Davinder Singh, SC.

2 The cost orders made by Kan J against Mr Anthony Wee formed the subject matter of a statutory demand subsequently issued by UBS, which led to a bankruptcy petition being presented against Mr Anthony Wee. I have been informed by the Registry of the Supreme Court that there is a pending appeal to the Court of Appeal against Belinda Ang J’s decision not to set aside the said statutory demand. That appeal (CA No. 39 of 2006) is scheduled to be heard on Friday, 11 May 2007.

The present application

3 In this exparte Originating Summons (“this OS”), Mr Anthony Wee, a retired senior lawyer, appears as a litigant in person, seeking to set aside the judgment of Kan J in S 834 on the grounds of “excessive intervention during the cross-examination of the Plaintiff/Witness and/or apparent bias in breach of a Judge’s judicial duty to ensure a fair and impartial hearing”. The “Plaintiff/Witness” is a reference to Mr Anthony Wee. In his affidavit in support of this OS, he quoted from various passages in the verbatim notes of evidence in S 834 to try to justify his allegations that:

(a) Kan J’s “excessive interruptions” were “clearly calculated to conduct an investigation to elicit evidence to assist Davinder Singh’s cross-examination”.

(b) Kan J’s “excessive interruptions” prolonged the cross-examination to thirty half-day sessions and were “calculated to harass and thereby put at risk the well-being of the Plaintiff who was, at the material time, 73 years old with a serious heart condition”.

(c) Kan J’s “callous attitude” toward Mr Anthony Wee’s age and serious heart condition gave rise to “a suspicion of ill-will” and the apprehension of a real danger of bias.

(d) Kan J intervened to caution Mr Anthony Wee’s counsel to “keep out of it”, i.e. not to interfere with his answers, when such intervention had nothing to do with his judicial duty to clear up points which were overlooked or left obscure.

Mr Anthony Wee further alleged that Kan J “inflicted further punishment on the Plaintiff by certifying a ‘Certificate of Two Counsel’ costs” notwithstanding that none was asked for by Mr Davinder Singh, SC. He also alleged that Kan J refused to recuse himself in June 2005 from hearing the taxation of costs in a bill arising out of S 834 and had instead allowed opposing counsel to argue on his (i.e. the judge’s) behalf on whether he should recuse himself or not and then, “to add salt to the wound”, awarded costs to the opposing counsel

Correspondence before the hearing

4 This OS was initially fixed for hearing on 24 April 2007. However, Mr Anthony Wee informed the Registry that he was on medical leave from 5 Dec 2006 to 4 Mar 2007 and would continue to be on medical leave until 4 May 2007, enclosing two letters dated 18 Dec 2006 and 29 Jan 2007 from Dr Lye Wai Choong, a consultant physician and nephrologist of the Centre for Kidney Diseases Pte Ltd at the Mount Elizabeth Medical Centre. Accordingly, Mr Anthony Wee requested (through his personal secretary) that this OS be adjourned to a later date, stating that CA No. 39 of 2006 was fixed before the Court of Appeal in the week commencing on Monday, 7 May 2007 and asking that the adjourned hearing date for this OS not be too close to the matter before the Court of Appeal, as he would be appearing in person and was not of good health.

5 This request was brought to my attention by the Registry. I was also informed that the Court of Appeal had, on 28 Mar 2007, granted Mr Anthony Wee a final adjournment in CA No. 39 of 2006 (to the week commencing on Monday, 7 May 2007) and directed that if he was not able to appear in person, he must instruct counsel to appear on his behalf and that if he was absent and no counsel appeared to argue on his behalf, the hearing would proceed without further adjournment. As the background facts set out above (at [1] and [2]) show, this OS will have an impact on CA No. 39 of 2006. Kan J’s judgment and cost orders in S 834 are the foundation of the statutory demand and CA No. 39 of 2006. Accordingly, I directed the Registry to reschedule this OS for hearing on 7 May 2007 (as Mr Anthony Wee would be on medical leave until 4 May 2007) and made the same directions as the Court of Appeal did. In addition, I directed the Registry to inform Mr Anthony Wee that:

Your application obviously cannot be heard ex parte and you must take immediate steps to serve the OS and affidavit, together with this letter from the Registry, on the party or parties who may be affected by the orders that you are seeking.

These directions were set out in a letter dated 18 April 2007 faxed to Mr Anthony Wee.

6 The next day, Mr Anthony Wee wrote to the Registry as follows:

I refer to your letter 18^th April 2007 which I received by fax today at 2.22pm.

I note that my application has been fixed before Justice Tay Yong Kwang who had heard and dismissed my ad-hoc application for a Q.C. to act for me in Suit 834 of 2001.

I place on record that paragraph 2(a), (b), (c) and (d) of your letter under reply is not only oppressive but smacks of apparent bias. It may interest Justice Tay to know I have a pending Court of Appeal in Hong Kong.

Upon hearing of my unfortunate predicament, the Appeal Judges adjourned the hearing without question until such time when I am well. Even Linklaters [which I assume is more reputable than Davinder Singh SC of Drew & Napier] never objected to the adjournment nor did they make the demand that the pending appeal be fixed no matter what and that if I am still unwell I be ordered to instruct counsel or else.

In the circumstances, may I know the reason and the law for ordering me to instruct Counsel failing which Justice Tay will proceed to hear my ex parte application without further ado.

Finally, I would like to know, as a litigant in person, for the record the law for Justice Tay to order me to take immediate steps to serve the O.S. and Affidavit together with your letter under reply on the party or parties who may be affected for the orders that I am seeking.

May I also know who are the “party or parties” other than Justice Tay’s brother judge Kan Ting Chiu as the only party who may be affected.

In the circumstances, by this letter, I hereby request that Justice Tay recuse himself on grounds of apparent bias from hearing my ex parte application on 7 May 2007.

7 I instructed the Registry to inform Mr Anthony Wee to make his application before me on 7 May 2007. Mr Anthony Wee was also informed (by the Registry’s...