TOW v TOV: Recusal of Judge in Ancillary Matters After Adverse Findings in Prior Protection Order Hearing
In TOW v TOV, the appellant, TOW, appealed against the District Judge's decision not to recuse herself from hearing the ancillary matters in her divorce proceedings with the respondent, TOV. The appellant sought recusal because the District Judge had previously made adverse findings against her in a Protection Order hearing. Aedit Abdullah JC dismissed the appeal, holding that a reasonable member of the public would not have a reasonable suspicion of bias.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding recusal of a judge in divorce ancillary matters after making adverse findings against a party in a prior protection order case. Appeal dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TOW | Appellant, Defendant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Bachoo Mohan Singh, Alwyn Kok |
| TOV | Respondent, Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Yap Teong Liang, Tan Hui Qing |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Aedit Abdullah | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Bachoo Mohan Singh | Bachoo Mohan Singh Law Practice |
| Alwyn Kok | Bachoo Mohan Singh Law Practice |
| Yap Teong Liang | T L Yap Law Chambers LLC |
| Tan Hui Qing | T L Yap Law Chambers LLC |
4. Facts
- The Appellant sought the recusal of the District Judge in the ancillary matters hearing.
- The District Judge had earlier made a personal protection order against the Appellant.
- The District Judge found the Appellant to be an untruthful witness in the PPO proceedings.
- The District Judge dismissed the recusal application.
- The Appellant appealed the District Judge's decision.
- The parties were married in August 2001 and have three children.
- Divorce proceedings were started by the Respondent in September 2013.
5. Formal Citations
- TOW v TOV, HCF/RAS 22 of 2016, [2016] SGHCF 16
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Parties married. | |
| Divorce proceedings started by the Respondent. | |
| Interim judgment granted in divorce proceedings. | |
| Hearing by the District Judge of an application by the Respondent for a Protection Order against the Appellant. | |
| Appellant filed an application for the appointment of a child issue expert. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Recusal of Judge
- Outcome: The court held that a fair-minded reasonable member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would not have the suspicion or apprehension that the District Judge would be biased.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Apparent bias
- Reasonable suspicion of bias
- Adverse findings in prior proceedings
- Related Cases:
- [1992] 1 SLR(R) 791
- [1997] 3 SLR(R) 576
- [2007] 1 SLR(R) 85
- [2013] 2 SLR 1108
8. Remedies Sought
- Recusal of judge
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Family Litigation
- Divorce
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R v Gough | N/A | Yes | [1993] AC 646 | England | Cited to note the difference in approach between the law on recusal in Singapore as opposed to that in England. |
| Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew | N/A | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 791 | Singapore | Cited as setting down the appropriate standard for recusal in Singapore, that of a reasonable suspicion of bias. |
| Tang Liang Hong v Lee Kuan Yew and another | N/A | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 576 | Singapore | Cited as setting down the appropriate standard for recusal in Singapore, that of a reasonable suspicion of bias. |
| Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni | N/A | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 85 | Singapore | Cited as setting down the appropriate standard for recusal for apparent bias in Singapore. |
| Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and another v Attorney-General | N/A | Yes | [2013] 2 SLR 1108 | Singapore | Cited as setting down the appropriate standard for recusal in Singapore, that of a reasonable suspicion of bias. |
| Otkritie International Investment Management Ltd & Ors v Urumov | Court of Appeal of England and Wales | Yes | (2014) EWCA Civ 1315 | England and Wales | Cited for legal principles regarding recusal, specifically that recusal should generally not occur unless the judge concludes that he or she is unable to give a fair hearing. |
| JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov | N/A | Yes | [2013] 1 WLR 1845 | England | Cited for the principle that a judge is not precluded from hearing a dispute involving a party simply because he had previously criticised the conduct of that party. |
| Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd | N/A | Yes | (2000) QB 451 | England | Cited for the principle that if a judge had expressed his views in such outspoken, extreme or unbalanced terms as to cast doubt on his ability to approach the subsequent case with an open judicial mind, then he should recuse himself. |
| Ong Wui Teck v Ong Wui Soon | High Court | Yes | [2016] 2 SLR 1067 | Singapore | Cited as adopting some of the principles from English authorities regarding apparent bias. |
| Vakauta v Kelly | N/A | Yes | (1989) 167 CLR 569 | Australia | Cited as an Australian case regarding apparent bias. |
| Hearst & Hearst and Ors | N/A | Yes | [2011] FamCA 470 | Australia | Cited as an Australian case regarding apparent bias. |
| Murray & Tomas and anor | N/A | Yes | [2011] FamCACF 81 | Australia | Cited as an Australian case regarding apparent bias. |
| Jarrah & Fadel (Disqualification) | N/A | Yes | [2015] FamCAFC 163 | Australia | Cited as an illustration for the principle that unless there are clear and substantiated grounds for recusal, the fears of a litigant that a judge might not be impartial are not sufficient. |
| Triodos Bank v Dobbs | N/A | Yes | [2005] EWCA Civ 468 | England | Cited for the principle that a judge should not recuse simply to avoid the discomfort of hearing a case involving his critic. |
| Tan Hock Chuan v Tan Tiong Hwa | N/A | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR(R) 90 | Singapore | Cited to support the argument that PPO proceedings are not quasi-criminal in nature. |
| TOV v TOW | Family Justice Courts | Yes | [2016] SGFC 62 | Singapore | Grounds of Decision of the District Judge in dismissing the recusal application. |
| TCV (On behalf of Child, A) v TCU | Family Justice Courts | Yes | [2015] SGFC 3 | Singapore | Grounds of Decision of the District Judge in granting the Protection Order. |
| In re JRL | N/A | Yes | (1986) 161 CLR 342 | Australia | Cited for the need to ensure that litigants should not pick their own judges or disrupt proceedings. |
| Stephens v Stephens (Disqualification) | N/A | Yes | [2010] FamCAFC 206 | Australia | Cited as an authority where adverse findings and remarks made by a judge against a litigant’s credibility could give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias of the same judge against that litigant in subsequent proceedings. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 321 | Singapore |
| Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) s 124 | Singapore |
| Women’s Charter s 125(2) | Singapore |
| Women’s Charter s 65 | Singapore |
| Women’s Charter s 65(8) | Singapore |
| Family Justice Act 2014 (Act 27 of 2014) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Recusal
- Apparent bias
- Reasonable suspicion
- Personal Protection Order
- Ancillary matters
- Docketing
- Judicial impartiality
15.2 Keywords
- Recusal
- Bias
- Family Law
- Divorce
- Singapore
- High Court
- Appeal
- Protection Order
- Ancillary Matters
16. Subjects
- Family Law
- Civil Procedure
- Judicial Review
- Recusal
- Bias
17. Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Divorce Law
- Judicial Review
- Civil Procedure