JUDGE Leong ERRED
1. Lawyers and their clients > Lawyers act for and on behalf of their clients on the INSTRUCTION of their clients. THUS, it is absurd and very wrong for any Judge/Court to penalize lawyers personally for court applications filed in Court. For any applications/appeal filed, if the Judge/Court wants to impose COST on the losing party, then it must be imposed on the litigant/party in the suit NEVER directly on lawyers???
Leong also ordered lawyers for the defendants who filed the recusal applications to personally bear costs totalling RM1.3 million in relation to the two suits.
2. RECUSAL application. One of the most important aspect of a FAIR TRIAL is an INDEPENDENT JUDGE. Thus Judges who believe he/she may be perceived to be not independent often RECUSE themselves. If any party believes that a Judge may not be 'independent' can apply for the said Judge to recuse himself/herself. This is BASIC - for after all, the desire is for a TRULY INDEPENDENT Judge presiding and determining a case independently fairly... Thus, any application for RECUSAL, it is a BASIC RIGHT which must be considered and decided upon - and NO PARTY should be PENALIZED for daring to suggest that a Judge may not be independent.
You are a FOOL if you continue believing that the Judge/Referee is biased or UNFAIR.. it is smart to get a change of JUDGE - to someone more independent..
Thus, Justice Leong should have heard the application and decided on it ...best with No Order as to Cost and certainly not ask lawyers to pay personally RM1.3 Million??? IMPACT - will any lawyer even thereafter be willing to make a RECUSAL application > because end result the lawyer may end up BANKRUPT? I believe that the majority of lawyers cannot afford to pay RM1.3 Million.
Will justice be undermined as lawyers "FEAR" advising clients to make needed applications - why the fear that some other JUDGE may order lawyers to pay cost personally? As it is, many a poorer client choose not to make needed applications for worry that Courts may ask them to pay HIGH Cost they simply cannot afford. END RESULT - JUSTICE IS NOT DONE.
# We have yet to read the judgment - so comments are based on media report.
Why did they apply to RECUSE the Judge > it seems that the judge made a comment that ...
Eight of 12 defendants in the second suit – led by Jayaveeran and former employee Tung Chee Cheong – filed applications claiming that Leong explicitly informed counsel during an in-chambers meeting on June 3 that he had already decided the issue of liability against them, leaving only the quantum for determination. To back their claims, the lawyers representing the applicants submitted identical statutory declarations detailing their recollection of the chambers meeting.
As a lawyer, if a JUDGE has already made comments that he had already pre-judged even before the FULL trials has commenced and ended, it is a MATTER OF CONCERN.
Any JUDGE must never make any pre-judgment as to liability or other issues > he will first go through the FULL TRIALS - and then ONLY decide based on evidence submitted as who is LIABLE or not - and then other matters ...
YES > a judge who already decided on GUILTY or liability even before the TRIAL starts and ends should RECUSE himself/herself to ensure JUSTICE is done and is seen to be done.
Will Leong's decision be appealed to the Court of Appeal?
Many years ago, when I was the appellant lawyer at the Court of Appeal before a panel that included Gopal Sri Ram, the said Judge asked me this
'Are you telling us that the Learned Judge of the High Court ERRED?'
# What should I say? Me, a young lawyer --- audacity to suggest a High Court Judge made a MISTAKE?
I answered, YES the learned High Court Judge ERRED...
And, Gopal Sri Ram repeated again the question ... and again, I said YES.
And, he again asked me a third time the same question...
WHY did the JUDGE asked this question > well, he wanted to know that I verily believed that the High COURT JUDGE ERRED - made a mistake...
HERE, based on media report, Judge LEONG ERRED...
RM1.3million COST is MOST ABSURD - will it not deter people from going to court to resolve disputes??? Has the COURTS just become an avenue of access of JUSTICE open to the RICH and SUPER RICH?
When parties end up in court - PRIORITY must be to ensure that JUSTICE be done >> thus 'HURDLES' like COST(excessive cost), or...must be removed. If the poor man, believes that he he files a NEEDED application, he is at risk of having to pay cost of RM10,000 or RM1million > will this not reasonably DETER JUSTICE....I have had clients who CHOOSE not to file needed applications and appeals simply because of this MONEY factor...Malaysian MINIMUM WAGE is RM1,700 > so, do you think a COST of RM1.3 million is JUST >
ARE MALAYSIAN COURTS FOR ALL > OR IS IT JUST FOR THE RICH AND SUPER RICH???
Judge warns litigants against using recusal bids to stall trials
Justice Leong Wai Hong dismisses defendants’ applications in Brainlab suits and orders lawyers to personally bear RM1.3 million in costs.
Justice Leong Wai Hong dismissed the recusal applications brought by several defendants in two interconnected High Court suits filed by German medical technology giant Brainlab AG and its Hong Kong subsidiary.
The underlying legal battle centres on allegations that Brainlab’s former regional sales director, S Jayaveeran, along with key associates and corporate entities, orchestrated an unauthorised device-rental scheme, breached fiduciary duties and pocketed secret profits.
Among the 12 defendants named in the second suit is prominent law firm Messrs Thomas Philip, which is accused of conspiring to dissipate about RM10 million under the guise of legal fees – a sum currently frozen under an interim Mareva injunction.
The recusal bid was filed 19 days into the trial of the first suit, and months before the trial of the second suit was set to commence.
Eight of 12 defendants in the second suit – led by Jayaveeran and former employee Tung Chee Cheong – filed applications claiming that Leong explicitly informed counsel during an in-chambers meeting on June 3 that he had already decided the issue of liability against them, leaving only the quantum for determination.
To back their claims, the lawyers representing the applicants submitted identical statutory declarations detailing their recollection of the chambers meeting.
However, the plaintiffs and opposing defendants, including Avro Medical Sdn Bhd and its director Jakly Cox, denied the allegations.
Lead counsel for the plaintiffs, Gopal Sreenevasan, submitted that the recusal applications were brought in bad faith and were directly contradicted by contemporaneous evidence.
Specifically, a WhatsApp message sent by Tung to Jayaveeran on the day of the in-chambers meeting revealed that the solicitors merely held a subjective “perception” that the judge favoured the plaintiffs during standard settlement inquiries, rather than any explicit declaration of liability by the judge.
Unfounded allegations of bias
In his 110-page grounds of judgment, Leong said judges must not lightly recuse themselves without cogent, realistic evidence of a real danger of bias.
Tracing jurisprudence from landmark Malaysian and Singaporean appellate rulings, including the seminal observations of the late Federal Court judge Gopal Sri Ram, Leong warned against the persistent misuse of recusal applications as weapons of abuse or tactical delay.
Leong added that despite a wealth of jurisprudence, the tendency to allege judicial bias on flimsy grounds showed no sign of abating.
“A demonstrably inaccurate attribution of bias is an aggravating factor against the applicant, suggesting either a misunderstanding or, in the worst cases, an attempt to manufacture grounds for recusal,” he said.
The judge also said that the defendants actively participated in both proceedings for over two years without objecting to him presiding over either case, making their sudden recusal applications mid-trial highly suspect.
The High Court ordered the parties to proceed with the remaining evidence and final submissions in the primary suit, while setting the stage for trial in the second action to commence later this year.
Leong also ordered lawyers for the defendants who filed the recusal applications to personally bear costs totalling RM1.3 million in relation to the two suits. - Free Malaysia Today, 19/8/2026
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment