fc_judgments: 93
Data source: lawnet.sg/lawnet/web/lawnet/free-resources
This data as json
| _id | _item_id | tags | date | court | case-number | title | citation | url | counsel | timestamp | coram | html | _commit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 93 | 9c540c024ca34c03229dfeebaa28611b45bd02fb | [
"Courts and Jurisdiction \u2013 Judges \u2013 Recusal"
] |
2024-10-16 | Family Court | Divorce No 3557 of 2022 (Summons No 3015 of 2024) | WPF v WPG | [2024] SGFC 91 | https://www.lawnet.sg:443/lawnet/web/lawnet/free-resources?p_p_id=freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet&p_p_lifecycle=1&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&_freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet_action=openContentPage&_freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet_docId=%2FJudgment%2F32334-SSP.xml | [
"Plaintiff-in-person",
"Defendant-in-person"
] |
2024-10-22T16:00:00Z[GMT] | Kenneth Yap | <root><head><title>WPF v WPG</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> WPF <em>v</em> WPG </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/32334-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 91</a></span></h2><table id="info-table"><tbody><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Case Number</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">Divorce No 3557 of 2022 (Summons No 3015 of 2024)</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Decision Date</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">16 October 2024</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Tribunal/Court</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">Family Court</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Coram</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> Kenneth Yap </td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Counsel Name(s)</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> Plaintiff-in-person; Defendant-in-person </td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Parties</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> WPF — WPG </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Courts and Jurisdiction</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Judges</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Recusal</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">16 October 2024</p></td><td><p class="Judg-Date-Reserved"></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p> <p class="Judg-Author"> District Judge Kenneth Yap:</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1 In the course of a contested divorce hearing before myself, the Defendant Husband filed SUM 3150/2024 (“the recusal summons”) on 20 September 2024 to apply for my recusal in the divorce proceedings, and for such proceedings to be stayed pending the outcome of the recusal application. The Defendant alleged that I had demonstrated bias by refusing his request to adjourn the contested divorce hearing of 9 September 2024 despite his medical condition.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 The recusal summons was fixed before me together with an adjourned session of the contested divorce proceedings on 30 September 2024. The Plaintiff Wife had earlier indicated on 26 September 2024 that she would not be filing an affidavit in response to the recusal application. While the Defendant requested at the hearing on 30 September 2024 to be granted leave to file an additional affidavit, I did not think this to be necessary. The basis for his application was sufficiently laid out in his supporting affidavit, and there was no need for a rebuttal as the Plaintiff had chosen not to respond substantively. I therefore proceeded to hear the recusal application and dismissed it, with brief grounds provided later that day. The Defendant has appealed against the recusal application, and my full grounds are provided as follows.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">The Defendant’s Case for Recusal </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 It is trite that to succeed in a recusal application, the applicant must either show actual bias on the part of the judge, or apparent bias, i.e. that a fair-minded observer with reasonable knowledge of the facts would conclude that the judge was so biased.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 There is no evidence raised in the defendant’s affidavit in support of any actual bias on my part with regard to the Defendant. I therefore take it that the applicant’s case is based solely on apparent bias. The thrust of his complaint is that I had ordered him to attend the contested divorce hearing over Zoom on 9 September 2024 despite the existence of a medical certificate from his cardiologist, one Dr Lim Choon Pin, which recommended that he be exempted from attendance at court. The Defendant also complains that I had proceeded with the hearing until the arrival of paramedics (whom the Defendant had pre-arranged to fetch himself to hospital) heralded the end of the session.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">The Threshold for Apparent Bias</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 The law on recusal for apparent bias is set out in the case of <em>Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/[2007] 1 SLR(R) 0085.xml')">[2007] 1 SLR(R) 85</a>, and was elucidated by Aidan Xu @ Aedit Abdullah J in <em>TOW v TOV</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/19792-SSP.xml')">[2016] SGHCF 16</a> at [31]:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">The test is whether the circumstances complained of would give rise to a reasonable suspicion or apprehension in a fair-minded reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts that the judge is biased. The assessment is made on an objective basis, but with the actual knowledge of the relevant facts. The fact that the yardstick is the perception of a fair-minded and reasonable person excludes any particular sensitivity or brittleness as to how the judge’s actions or statements should be judged.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 The threshold is not passed simply because a judge has made adverse findings or ruled against the interest of the applicant. The learned Judge further observed in <em>TOW v TOV</em>, at [34] that:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">A judge in our adversarial system would be expected to sift through the evidence, choose one side’s version of the facts to the other’s, and normally, in the absence of objective evidence, reach conclusions on credit and credibility. If the judge considers that witnesses have been mistaken, deficient, or untruthful, the judge should make the necessary findings. The judge is not expected to be gingerly or tactful to the point of obscuring necessary findings. The courtroom is certainly not an arena for trial by combat, or for the flagellation of witnesses, but there is no safe zone against adverse findings in the courtroom: the court is concerned with the proof of a case, and will need to evaluate the credit and credibility of the witnesses who testify.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 At [42], the court went on to observe that the mere fact that a judge had previously made adverse comments or findings against a litigant is not, on its own, sufficient for a recusal application to succeed. It should also be noted that even if the judge were wrong in his reasons or conclusion, that should not itself be reason to allege prejudice on his or her part (per <em>Werner Samuel Vuillemin v Overseas-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/21684-SSP.xml')">[2018] SGHC 92</a> at [67]).</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Whether Apparent Bias was Established on the Facts</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 The litmus test in the present appeal is whether the decision would lead an objective and omniscient onlooker to conclude that the judge was biased in the conduct of the matter. If so, this court should recuse itself of its own accord.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 To address the perception of my refusal to adjourn the contested divorce hearing, one needs to have regard to the long-drawn chronology of this matter.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Adjournments granted prior to the contested divorce hearing</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 The Plaintiff’s writ of divorce was filed more than two years ago, on 4 August 2022. After the Defendant entered appearance on 20 October 2022, mediation and counselling was conducted from December 2022 to January 2023, but did not prove successful. Directions were then given for the case to proceed to a contested divorce hearing.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 The Defendant next filed FC/SUM 734/2023 on 7 March 2023 to strike out the Plaintiff’s reference to a mutual agreement in the divorce proceedings. The summons was heard on 12 June 2023 and dismissed in part. The Defendant appealed against this decision in FC/RA 11/2023, which was heard by the District Judge in chambers and dismissed on 1 August 2023.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 The Defendant then filed a further appeal against the dismissal of his striking out application on 4 August 2023, in FC/RAS 14/2023. The appeal hearing was initially fixed for hearing before the High Court Family Division on 20 September 2023, but this was eventually adjourned six times over a period of about ten months to 18 July 2024 on account of the Defendant’s heart condition. The full details of these adjournments are provided to give a flavour of the latitude granted to the Defendant for his medical condition for the interlocutory appeal.</p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2-tblr" frame="all" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="15.3430686137227%"><col width="16.3432686537307%"><col width="16.9833966793359%"><col width="21.1842368473695%"><col width="30.1460292058412%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Case / Type of Hearing</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Date of Hearing</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Correspondence</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Whether Medical Certificate (“MC”) tendered</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Reason for adjournment</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">RAS 14/2023 (Hearing)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">20 September 2023</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">17 September 2023</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">MC dated 17 September 2023 exempting Defendant from court hearing from 16 to 20 September 2023. By Dr Ting (Farrer Park Hospital)</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Defendant admitted to Farrer Park Hospital and undergoing treatment and evaluation.</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Hearing adjourned to 17 October 2023. </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">RAS 14/2023 (Hearing)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">17 October 2023</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">14 October 2023</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Memo dated 14 October 2023 from</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Dr Lim Choon Pin (Mount Elizabeth)</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Defendant admitted to Mount Elizabeth Novena Hospital for</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">recurrent chest pain. He was found to have coronary artery disease and was scheduled to</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">undergo a coronary angiogram on 17 October 2023. He was expected to be hospitalised until</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">19 October 2023, with a period of recuperation thereafter.</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Hearing adjourned to 28 November 2023. </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">RAS 14/2023 (Pre-Trial Conference)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">28 November 2023</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">--</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Defendant requested for adjournment on basis that review appointment with heart specialist was on 29 December 2023.</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Hearing adjourned to 25 January 2024. </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">RAS 14/2023 (Hearing)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">25 January 2024</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">27 December 2023</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Memo dated 27 December 2023. Unfit to attend court proceedings on 25 January 2024.</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Dr Lim Choon Pin (Mount Elizabeth)</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Defendant complained of intermittent chest tightness that was exacerbated during a recent bout of Covid-19 infection. As such he was unfit to attend court proceedings on 25 January 2024. Doctor would be reviewing him in February 2024.</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Fixed for Pre-Trial Conference on 27 February 2024. </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">RAS 14/2023</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(Pre-Trial Conference)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">27 February 2024</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">20 February 2024 </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Memo dated 20 February 2024.</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Unfit to attend Court till end May 2024</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Dr Lim Choon Pin (Mount Elizabeth)</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Defendant complained of intermittent chest tightness that gets worse when he is emotionally charged. As such, he was certified unfit to attend court proceedings from 20 February 2024 to end May 2024.</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Hearing adjourned to 16 April 2024.</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">RAS 14/2023</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(Pre-Trial Conference)</p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">16 April 2024</p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">8 April 2024</p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Memo dated 8 April 2024</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Dr Lim Choon Pin (Mount Elizabeth)</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Doctor indicated that Defendant had significant coronary artery stenosis in the mid to distal left anterior descending artery and fractional flow reserve was impaired and has also listed other medical issues. Defendant complained of chest tightness when he gets angry thus the doctor had recommended that he be excused from court proceedings until end of May 2024.</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Pre-Trial Conference adjourned to 25 June 2024. </p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">At the Pre-Trial Conference, hearing date was fixed for 18 July 2024. </p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 Due to the numerous adjournments occasioned by the Defendant’s heart condition, the interlocutory appeal (FC/RAS 14/2023) was finally heard on 18 July 2024, and dismissed on 29 July 2024. This was nearly a year after it had been filed on 4 August 2023.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Adjournments granted in the course of the contested divorce hearing</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 The matter first came before me for hearing of the contested divorce on 13 August 2024. It would eventually be adjourned six times over the course of the next ten weeks to accommodate the Defendant’s medical condition.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">The First Adjournment</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 On the first hearing date of 13 August 2024, the Defendant was absent from court. It transpired that he had sent an e-mail to the Registry fifteen minutes prior to the hearing, informing that he had just undergone an angioplasty procedure that day. The e-mail attached Dr Lim Choon Pin’s memo, which requested the court to adjourn his case for three months until after 30 November 2024. No explanation was given why advance notice was not provided for the Defendant’s absence, given that the hearing date had been fixed since 17 July 2024. The memo also did not comply with the Family Justice Court’s Practice Directions (“the Practice Directions”), as it did not state specifically <em>whether and when</em> the Defendant was unfit to attend court. The court accordingly directed that the matter be adjourned to 27 August 2024, and that the Defendant resubmit a medical certificate which excused his attendance for that day as well as any further date, accompanied by a full medical report explaining his medical history in relation to his heart problems. The Defendant was also instructed to ensure that his medical certificate be in compliance with paragraph 162(3) of the Practice Directions.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">The Second Adjournment</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 The Defendant next wrote in with a medical report from Dr Lim Choon Pin dated 17 August 2024. The doctor observed that the Defendant had had some bruising and swelling at the right groin access site for his recent angioplasty procedure, and was still being monitored to see if his chest pain symptoms had resolved. The doctor recommended that the Defendant was medically unfit to attend court for the period from 13 August 2024 to 30 November 2024.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 In response, the court converted the hearing from an open court hearing to a hearing over Zoom, and adjourned the hearing (for a second time) from 27 August 2024 to 9 September 2024. The registry’s reply via email on 26 August 2024 emphasised to the Defendant that the change of mode of hearing was in deference to his medical condition, noting as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Should you feel concerned about your medical condition, you may locate yourself either in a hospital or in a place where you can be readily assisted should any medical emergency arise. You may wish to consult with your medical doctor on how best to make arrangements for such attendance. As family proceedings are confidential, you are reminded to ensure that you attend the Zoom hearing in a private room, although you are at liberty to call on assistance in the event of any medical need or emergency.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 In a further response on 5 September 2024 to the Defendant’s repeated requests to further adjourn the divorce hearing, the Defendant was also offered the option of attending the Zoom proceedings from a room in court, so that ready assistance could be provided in the event of any medical emergency.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">The Third Adjournment</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19 The adjourned hearing was next held on 9 September 2024, with the Defendant choosing to attend the proceedings over Zoom from his residence. He repeated his request for an adjournment, which was denied on the basis that he could call for medical assistance if needed. Over the course of the hearing, the Defendant revealed that he had made a prior arrangement for an ambulance to pick him up from his residence at 10.30 am on the day of the hearing. He admitted that this had been arranged some four to five days prior to the 9 September hearing (i.e. on 4 or 5 September). He also revealed that the ambulance service had contacted him on the night of 8 September and that he had confirmed the appointment. When the paramedics eventually arrived at 11 am during the morning hearing, the court had little choice but to adjourn the hearing (for the third time) to 18 September 2024, 2:30 pm.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">The Fourth Adjournment</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20 The Defendant next wrote in on 10 September 2024 with a medical certificate indicating that he was unfit to attend court from 9 to 22 September 2024. As a result, the hearing was adjourned (for the fourth time) to 26 September 2024, at 2:30 pm.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">The Fifth Adjournment</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21 On the morning of 26 September 2024, the Defendant wrote in at 10:23 am claiming that he had suffered a heart attack in the morning and was currently warded in Mount Elizabeth Novena Hospital. The hearing was adjourned (for the fifth time) to 30 September 2024, with fresh directions given to tender a medical report and medical certificate in compliance with Practice Directions.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22 The Defendant next submitted a clinical discharge summary, a medical report and medical certificate on 27 September 2024. The clinical discharge revealed that he was admitted and warded at the Mount Elizabeth Novena hospital from 26 to 27 September 2024 for chest pain, right groin pseudoaneurysm and right subconjunctival haemorrhage. No mention was made of him having suffered a heart attack as had been claimed. He was discharged with a medical certificate granting hospitalisation leave and which stated he was not fit for court attendance, for a period of 18 days from 26 September to 13 October 2024. As directed by the court, Dr Lim Choon Pin submitted a medical report dated 27 September 2026 which re-iterated his earlier recommendation that the Defendant was medically unfit to attend court until 30 November 2024 (when his prescription of double blood thinners ends). It is not clear if there was actually a consult conducted by Dr Lim with the Defendant in the course of the latter’s recent admission.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">The Sixth Adjournment</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23 The hearing next proceeded on 30 September 2024, with the Defendant attending under protest. The recusal summons was mentioned first, with the Defendant seeking leave to file a further affidavit in support of his application. This was declined as the Plaintiff had earlier indicated on the hearing of 26 September 2024 that she was not filing an affidavit. An opportunity was given for the Defendant to orally submit on the recusal application, which he declined to do on the basis that his doctor had advised him that he could not be involved in any argument or hearing. I noted that the Defendant had clearly stated his position in his supporting affidavit, and being satisfied that he had sufficiently put forward his case, proceeded to hear and dismiss the recusal summons.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24 The court did not proceed thereafter with the contested divorce hearing. Instead, special directions were given on account of the Defendant’s medical condition. Each party was directed to file a list of questions via correspondence by 7 October 2024, with leave to file a final reply affidavit solely restricted to answering the questions posed by 18 October 2024. It was also directed that if no questions were tendered, the court would take it that the party had no questions to be raised in cross-examination. Mindful that the Defendant’s latest medical certificate (dated 27 September 2024) recommended absence from court until 13 October 2024, the hearing of the matter was adjourned to 22 October 2024.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Whether a reasonable person would have a reasonable suspicion of bias</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25 As can be seen from the above, the Defendant was given ample latitude since September 2023 due to his medical issues, with six adjournments given over the course of his interlocutory appeal, and another six adjournments over the course of the present contested divorce hearings (two of which were <em>prior</em> to the 9 September 2024 hearing which is the subject matter of the recusal). It is noteworthy that despite being given respite since September 2023 to July 2024 from court proceedings, the Defendant had chosen to put off his angioplasty procedure throughout this period, even though his own doctor had recommended that he undergo this procedure. This was evident from Dr Lim Choon Pin’s medical report dated 8 April 2024, which provided the following assessment:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">I first saw [Defendant] on 13 October 2023 in my outpatient cardiac clinic. He reported symptoms of chest tightness and had undergone a CT coronary angiogram at Starmed under Dr Peter Ting that had showed significant blockage in one of his heart arteries (left anterior descending artery). He came to see me for further management of his cardiac condition. He subsequently underwent a coronary angiogram on 17 October 2023 which showed that he indeed has significant coronary artery stenosis in the mid to distal left anterior descending artery and fractional flow reserve was impaired (0.73) with adenosine challenge. <b>He was recommended to undergo angioplasty and stenting of this artery, but chose medical therapy instead.</b></p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a>…</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <b>Currently, [Defendant] has decided to postpone his decision for angioplasty and stenting of his narrowed heart artery.</b> He wants to pursue medical therapy, but still complains of chest tightness when he gets angry, hence my recommendation that he be excused from court proceedings until end of May 2024 when I review him again for the effectiveness of his treatment. If his chest pain is better controlled, he can resume attending court. [Emphasis added]</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_26"></a>26 The Defendant then curiously fixed the angioplasty procedure on the first date of the hearing of the contested divorce hearing on 13 August 2024, with only 15 minutes’ prior notice given to the court. It also bears mention that he had arranged in advance for an ambulance some four to five days before the next proceeded hearing date of 9 September 2024, even before he faced any actual emergency on that day. The recording of the proceedings conducted over Zoom will also show that despite the Defendant’s repeated insistence that he was unable to conduct the proceedings, he appeared calm and was able to advance his case, at least until the pre-arranged arrival of paramedics compelled an adjournment of the session.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_27"></a>27 Despite the multiple delays occasioned by the Defendant’s medical condition in the interlocutory appeal, this court had adjourned the present hearing six times over a period of ten weeks from 13 August to 22 October 2024. It had also given the Defendant the leeway to attend the hearing on Zoom from a hospital, clinic or any location where he could be assured of medical assistance if needed. These special arrangements were granted because there was a clear and pressing need to move the proceedings forward in this case, given that more than two years had passed since the filing of the divorce writ. It is apposite to remember that justice delayed is also justice denied. This is underscored by the judge-led approach under Rule 22(2) of the Family Justice Rules 2014, which exhorts the court to “make such order or give such direction as it thinks fit, for the just, expeditious and economic disposal of the cause or matter.”</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_28"></a>28 It should also be remembered that the pith of the recusal application is not the correctness of the directions given by the court. It is whether, from an objective viewpoint, such directions reveal bias or prejudice on the part of the court such that it should remove itself from further conduct of the proceedings. Given the extensive delay occasioned in this case, I did not find the directions made to be unreasonable in the mind of an objective bystander. Quite to the contrary, every latitude had been extended to the Defendant to manage his medical conditions and to proceed with reasonable despatch with the present proceedings. It should be remembered that the court is not bound to abdicate its management of court proceedings at the behest of medical practitioners, no matter how well intentioned. The court remains the master of its own procedure, and is solely responsible for balancing the needs of justice with the demands of efficiency. In the present case, every reasonable accommodation has been made in view of the Defendant’s medical issues, including multiple adjournments and a shift in the modality of hearing, first to a remote hearing, and finally to an exchange of questions and answers by way of affidavit. There is no indication that the Defendant is unable to pen thoughts to paper to further his case, and these special directions have been given to move proceedings along in a manner that minimises any risk posed to the Defendant’s health. It bears noting too that considerable prejudice has already been suffered by the Plaintiff, who has waited two years for the divorce proceedings to move forward. Under the circumstances, I do not think that the directions given in the conduct of this case would give rise to an impression in the mind of an objective bystander that the court had been biased against the Defendant in the conduct of these proceedings. Quite to the contrary, a court which adjourns <em>ad infinitum</em> on medical grounds may be perceived as being unjust to the other party stranded in adjudicative limbo through no fault of their own.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_29"></a>29 I accordingly dismissed the application for recusal, as well as the attendant prayer that the divorce proceedings be stayed pending the outcome of the recusal summons, since this was no longer necessary. As the Plaintiff did not ask for costs, I made no order as to costs.</p> </div></content></root> | 1825 |
Links from other tables
- 1 row from _item in fc_judgments_version