Png Hock Leng v AXA Insurance: Recusal Application Based on Apparent Bias
Png Hock Leng applied for the recusal of Justice Chua Lee Ming from his appeal against AXA Insurance Pte Ltd, arguing apparent bias because the appeal challenged principles from Justice Chua's earlier decision in Autoexport. The Appellate Division of the High Court, comprising Belinda Ang Saw Ean JAD and See Kee Oon J, dismissed the application, finding no evidence of apparent bias and deeming it an instance of judge shopping. The court ordered Png Hock Leng to pay costs to AXA Insurance.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Appellate Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Recusal application dismissed. The court found no apparent bias in a judge hearing an appeal involving principles from his earlier decision.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Png Hock Leng | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| AXA Insurance Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Costs Awarded | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge of the Appellate Division | Yes |
| See Kee Oon | Judge of the High Court | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Png Hock Leng sought recusal of Justice Chua Lee Ming from his appeal.
- Applicant argued apparent bias due to the Judge's prior decision in Autoexport.
- The appeal challenged principles stated in Autoexport.
- The Judge was assigned to the Appellate Division of the High Court since July 2021.
- The applicant's counterclaim in MC 146 exceeds the District Court’s jurisdiction.
- The applicant requested AD/CA 102 not be fixed before the Judge because the appeal concerned principles stated in Autoexport.
5. Formal Citations
- Png Hock Leng v AXA Insurance Pte Ltd, Civil Appeal No 102 of 2021 (Summons No 6 of 2022), [2022] SGHC(A) 10
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Parties informed that AD/CA 102 was to be heard in the sitting of the Appellate Division of the High Court from 31 January 2022 to 11 February 2022. | |
| Adjournment granted at the request of counsel for the applicant to refix the hearing date to the sitting of the Appellate Division of the High Court commencing on 7 March 2022. | |
| Applicant wrote a letter to the Registry of the High Court requesting that AD/CA 102 not be fixed before the Judge. | |
| Parties were informed by way of the fixture list that the Judge would be on the coram. | |
| At a case management conference, the applicant reiterated his request that AD/CA 102 not be fixed before the Judge on the basis of apparent bias. | |
| Applicant filed SUM 6 seeking the recusal of the Judge from hearing AD/CA 102 and the stay of AD/CA 102 pending the outcome of SUM 6 including any appeals therefrom. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Apparent Bias
- Outcome: The court found no evidence of apparent bias.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2018] 2 SLR 1156
- [2021] 2 SLR 440
8. Remedies Sought
- Recusal of Judge
- Stay of Appeal
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Insurance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ong Wui Teck v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 855 | Singapore | Cited to emphasize the importance of judicial independence and impartiality. |
| BOI v BOJ | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1156 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that allegations of judicial bias are extremely serious and should only be employed with great circumspection and care. |
| Soh Rui Yong v Liew Wei Yen Ashley | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 96 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that allegations of judicial bias are extremely serious and should only be employed with great circumspection and care. |
| Noor Azlin bte Abdul Rahman and another v Changi General Hospital Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 440 | Singapore | Cited to caution against allegations of bias against sitting judges in Singapore. |
| TOW v TOV | Unknown | Yes | [2017] 3 SLR 725 | Singapore | Cited to guard against the use of unfounded allegations of bias to engage in judge shopping as a procedural strategy. |
| Raman Dhir v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1374 | Unknown | Yes | [2021] 4 SLR 1215 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that judges should no more choose their cases than lawyers choose their judges. |
| Chee Siok Chin and another v Attorney-General | Unknown | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 541 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that judge shopping cannot be condoned as it is insidious, and undermines and weakens the administration of justice. |
| Autoexport & EPZ Pte Ltd (formerly known as AJ Towing (S) Pte Ltd v TOW77 Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2021] 4 SLR 1201 | Singapore | The applicant sought recusal because the appeal concerned principles stated in this decision. |
| Tang Liang Hong v Lee Kuan Yew and another and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 576 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a claim of apparent bias on the part of a judge must be based on facts that are substantially true and accurate. |
| Bainton v Rajski | New South Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | (1992) 29 NSWLR 539 | Australia | Cited to support the principle that the administration of justice and the rights of other parties would not be governed by the allegation of or the belief in facts, however dishonest, paranoiac, unbalanced or honestly wrong. |
| Re JRL | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1986) 66 ALR 239 | Australia | Cited to explain that previous decisions of a judicial officer on issues of fact and law may generate an expectation that he is likely to decide issues in a particular case adversely to one of the parties. |
| Helljay Investments Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation | Unknown | Yes | (1999) 166 ALR 302 | Australia | Cited to explain that the bare fact that a judicial officer has earlier expressed an opinion on questions of law will therefore seldom, if ever, warrant a conclusion of appearance of bias. |
| Prometheus Marine Pte Ltd v King, Ann Rita | Unknown | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that an open mind does not mean an empty mind. |
| Miao Weiguo v Tendcare Medical Group Holdings Pte Ltd and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 116 | Singapore | Cited as an instance where judges reconsider previous rulings on the basis of new arguments and come to a different view. |
| Townsing Henry George v Jenton Overseas Investment Pte Ltd (in liquidation) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 597 | Singapore | Cited as an instance where a previous Court of Appeal decision was overruled. |
| Iskandar bin Rahmat v Law Society of Singapore | Unknown | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 874 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that the law is seldom static and develops over time. |
| Astro Nusantara International BV and others v PT Ayunda Prima Mitra and others | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 636 | Singapore | Cited as an instance where a judge reconsidered an obiter view expressed in a previous case and was persuaded by new arguments to come to the opposite conclusion. |
| Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels Inc and another v Global Gaming Philippines LLC and another | Unknown | Yes | [2021] 3 SLR 725 | Singapore | Cited as an instance where a judge reconsidered an obiter view expressed in a previous case and was persuaded by new arguments to come to the opposite conclusion. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (2020 Rev Ed) Art 97(1) | Singapore |
| State Courts Act (Cap 321, Rev Ed 2007) s 54E | Singapore |
| State Courts Act (Cap 321, Rev Ed 2007) s 54B | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (2020 Rev Ed) s 33(3) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Apparent Bias
- Recusal
- Judge Shopping
- Judicial Impartiality
- Fair Hearing
- Prejudgment
15.2 Keywords
- recusal
- apparent bias
- judge shopping
- judicial impartiality
- fair hearing
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Recusal | 90 |
| Fair Hearing | 85 |
| Natural justice | 80 |
| Administrative Law | 75 |
| Civil Procedure | 60 |
| Jurisdiction | 40 |
| Estoppel | 30 |
| Contract Law | 20 |
| Company Law | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Judicial Review
- Civil Procedure