Ong Wui Teck v Ong Wui Swoon: Recusal Application in Estate Dispute

Ong Wui Teck applied for Justice Woo Bih Li to disqualify himself from hearing matters pertaining to his mother’s estate, citing conflict of interest and bias. The application was opposed by Ong Wui Swoon. The application arose from prior disputes between the siblings regarding their father's estate, where Justice Woo had made adverse findings against Ong Wui Teck. Justice Woo recused himself, not due to the merits of the allegations, but because he was contemplating making a complaint about Ong Wui Teck’s conduct to the appropriate authorities.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Judge recused himself from hearing the disputes with Mdm Ong in respect of the mother’s estate.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Application by Ong Wui Teck for Judge Woo Bih Li to recuse himself from hearing matters related to his mother's estate, alleging conflict of interest and bias.

1.7 Decision Date

20 March 2016

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Ong Wui Teck	Plaintiff	Individual	Application granted	Other
Ong Wui Swoon	Defendant	Individual	Application opposed	Neutral	Carolyn Tan of Tan & Au LLP Tony Au of Tan & Au LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Woo Bih Li	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Carolyn Tan	Tan & Au LLP
Tony Au	Tan & Au LLP

4. Facts

Mr. Ong and Mdm. Ong are siblings involved in disputes over their parents' estates.
Mr. Ong applied for the judge to recuse himself, alleging conflict of interest and bias.
The application stemmed from prior adverse rulings against Mr. Ong in a case concerning the father's estate.
Mr. Ong claimed the judge's prior findings would prejudice his case regarding the mother's estate.
The judge considered Mr. Ong's allegations of bias, including the fixing of multiple cases before him.
The judge found Mr. Ong's allegations of bias to be baseless and not made in good faith.
The judge recused himself due to contemplating reporting Mr. Ong's conduct to the authorities.

5. Formal Citations

Ong Wui Teck v Ong Wui Swoon, HC/Originating Summons No 165 of 2016, [2016] SGHC 42

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1990-01-01	One of the six siblings passed away.
2005-01-01	Mdm Ong and other siblings filed an action in the then-Subordinate Courts to challenge the validity of the mother’s Will.
2007-01-01	The District Court upheld the Will.
2011-01-01	Suit No 385 of 2011 concerning the father’s estate was filed.
2012-10-30	Written judgment of substantive decision issued.
2013-01-01	Mdm Ong filed another action in the Subordinate Courts against Mr Ong in respect of the mother’s estate.
2013-09-24	AR Leong decided that the father’s estate had assets amounting to $15,756.47.
2014-02-03	Initial order that each party was to bear his or her own costs of the trial.
2014-02-24	AR Khng allowed Mr Ong's application for an extension of time to appeal against the AR’s decisions.
2014-03-03	Mr Ong was ordered to pay Mdm Ong some costs of the trial which was fixed at $10,000.
2014-05-19	Mdm Ong’s appeal was allowed in part and the extension of time to appeal against AR Leong’s substantive decision was set aside.
2014-08-07	Grounds of decision issued.
2014-10-15	The Court of Appeal ordered the parties to go for mediation.
2015-03-09	The Court of Appeal struck out Mr Ong’s appeals.
2015-09-29	Mdm Ong’s action was dismissed.
2015-10-13	She then filed an appeal to the High Court.
2016-01-26	At a pre-trial conference, an Assistant Registrar informed the parties that both OS 11/2016 and DCA 21/2015 were fixed for hearing before Justice Woo.
2016-02-22	Mr Ong filed the present application for Justice Woo to recuse himself from hearing all matters in respect of the mother’s estate.
2016-03-04	Hearing date.
2016-03-21	Hearing date.

7. Legal Issues

Recusal
- Outcome: The judge recused himself from hearing the disputes with Mdm Ong in respect of the mother’s estate.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Conflict of interest
  - Bias

8. Remedies Sought

Recusal of judge

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
Ong Wui Swoon v Ong Wui Teck	High Court	Yes	[2013] 1 SLR 733	Singapore	Cited for the specific guidelines set out in the written judgment regarding the determination of the assets of the father’s estate.
Ong Wui Swoon v Ong Wui Teck	High Court	Yes	[2014] SGHC 157	Singapore	Cited regarding the decision to set aside AR Leong’s costs order and fix the quantum of costs that Mr Ong had to pay for the inquiry at $400.
Ong Wui Swoon v Ong Wui Teck	District Court	Yes	[2015] SGDC 270	Singapore	Cited to show that Mr Ong had made the same point to DJ Seah, ie, that it was the Registrar who made the inquiry.
Otkritie International Investment Management Ltd	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] EWCA Civ 135	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a judge who has previously criticized the conduct of a party is not necessarily precluded from hearing a subsequent dispute involving the same party.
Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2000] QB 451	England and Wales	Cited for the example of when a real danger of bias might arise.
Vakauta v Kelly	N/A	Yes	(1989) 167 C.L.R. 569	N/A	Cited as an example of a case where the judge had expressed views in such extreme and unbalanced terms as to throw doubt on his ability to try the issue with an objective judicial mind.
Attorney-General v Tan Liang Joo John and others	N/A	Yes	[2009] 2 SLR(R) 1132	Singapore	Cited for the principle that fair criticism does not amount to contempt of court.
Andre Paul Terence Ambard v The Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago	N/A	Yes	[1936] 1 AII ER 704	N/A	Cited for the principle that no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising in good faith in private or public the public act done in the seat of justice.
Re Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2008] 2 SLR(R) 1101	Singapore	Cited to allege that the judge cannot fully remove all trace of odour from the air of impartiality.

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
Conflict of interest
Bias
Estate
Intestate
Will
Administrator
Executor

15.2 Keywords

Recusal
Bias
Estate
Conflict of Interest
Singapore
High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Recusal	100
Estate Administration	90
Succession Law	80
Wills and Probate	70
Civil Procedure	70
Administrative Law	10

16. Subjects

Civil Litigation
Estate Dispute
Judicial Conduct