Dhir v Management Corp: Recusal Application Based on Alleged Bias in Property Dispute
In Raman Dhir v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1374, before the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, Justice Choo Han Teck dismissed an application by Raman Dhir for the judge to recuse himself from hearing an appeal. The application was based on an allegation of apparent bias due to a previous complaint made by Dhir's counsel against the judge in a separate case. The court found no reason for recusal, emphasizing that judges must judge the cause and witnesses, and ensure proper conduct of counsel, regardless of personal feelings.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Application for recusal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Raman Dhir's recusal application against Justice Choo in a property dispute was dismissed due to lack of apparent bias.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raman Dhir | Appellant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1374 | Respondent | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Choo Han Teck | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tan Beng Hui Carolyn | Tan & Au LLP |
| Kang Hui Lin Jasmin | Aequitas Law LLP |
4. Facts
- Miss Tan, counsel for the appellant, had previously complained against the judge in 2007.
- The appellant claimed there was historic enmity between his solicitor and the judge.
- The judge stated he had no personal interest in the matter in dispute.
- Miss Tan argued her client may reasonably fear an apparent bias.
- The judge stated that judges do not have to like or dislike counsel.
5. Formal Citations
- Raman Dhir v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1374, , [2021] SGHC 99
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| MC/OSS 339 of 2019 filed between the appellant and the respondent | |
| District Judge's decision given | |
| Notice of Appeal filed | |
| Affidavit filed by Miss Tan | |
| Letter to the Registry requesting another judge to hear the recusal application | |
| Hearing on recusal application | |
| Hearing of application for leave to appeal in MC Suit No 30163 of 2004 | |
| Miss Tan requested for further arguments | |
| Registry informed Miss Tan that Justice Choo would be hearing further arguments | |
| Justice Choo informed the Registry he would not be hearing further arguments | |
| Miss Tan applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal | |
| Justice Choo released grounds of decision | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Apparent Bias
- Outcome: The court found no apparent bias and dismissed the recusal application.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- historic enmity
- judge's conduct
- Related Cases:
- [2008] 2 SLR(R) 529
- [2007] EWCA Civ 1149
8. Remedies Sought
- Recusal of the judge from hearing the appeal
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blenwel Agencies Pte Ltd v Tan Lee King | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 529 | Singapore | Cited to show a prior case where Miss Tan, counsel for the appellant, had appeared before the judge, and the Court of Appeal released its written grounds even though it had granted Miss Tan’s client leave to discontinue the appeal. |
| Wendy Ann El-Farargy v Nael Mahmoud El Farargy and others | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] EWCA Civ 1149 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the principle that it is invidious for a judge to sit in judgment on his own conduct in recusal cases, and to distinguish the facts of the present case from a case where a judge's comments gave the appearance of bias. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Recusal
- Apparent bias
- Judicial temperament
- Historic enmity
- Fair-minded observer
15.2 Keywords
- Recusal
- Apparent bias
- Judge
- Counsel
- Singapore
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Recusal | 95 |
| Natural justice | 90 |
| Apparent bias | 90 |
| Constitutional Law | 70 |
| Civil Procedure | 60 |
| Judgments and Orders | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Judicial Recusal
- Legal Ethics
- Civil Litigation