which was subsequently filed on 21 May 2014.Justice Choo Han TeckMy appeal on the Bankruptcy Order was heard before Justice Choo Han Teck (Justice Choo) on 14 July2014 and it was dismissed. I wrote for Further Arguments on 21 July 2014 and it was heard anddismissed by Justice Choo on 11 August 2014. When I asked for the grounds for the dismissal, JusticeChoo informed me that he will write it in his written judgment. Till to date, Justice Choo has notreleased the written judgment in respect of my Further Arguments before him on 11 August 2014which he said he would do so. The law is clearly with me in my substantial objection to the Bankruptcy application. I have no choicebut to appeal to the Court of Appeal on a matter of law as regards the interpretation of Rule 98(3) ofthe Bankruptcy Rules. I then filed an application on 15 August 2014 for leave to appeal to Court ofAppeal and attended before the Duty Registrar on the same day seeking an audience before the DutyJudge that day, for my leave application to be heard by any Judge other than Justice Choo. The Duty
Registrar did not fix my request to appear before the Duty Judge, but instead informed me that myconcern, that the leave application should not be heard before Justice Choo, was duly noted. However,to my disappointment, the leave application was again fixed before Justice Choo. This is important forthe conduct of the Bankruptcy application by Justice Choo and by the Assistant Registrar has to bescrutinized by the Court of Appeal for clearly, they have failed to apply the law when they grantedand/or affirmed the Bankruptcy Order.This being the case, clearly, Justice Choo cannot hear theapplication, and sweep my contentions away by refusing to grant leave so as to avoid the Court ofAppeal looking into his conduct. My application for leave to appeal was fixed for hearing before Justice Choo on 22 September 2014. Atthe hearing in Justice Choo’s Chambers, I informed him that my assistant would be assisting me to takenotes at the hearing. Justice Choo asked me whether my assistant is alawyer. I said no. I then informedJustice Choo that my assistant has been helping me for the past 7 years in the Court proceedings.Justice Choo then told me that as a litigant in person I am not allowed to bring anybody with me insidethe chamber as it was not a proper procedure. Justice Choo further remarked “either she leaves orboth of you leave or I will not be hearing this application”. I had no choice but to ask my assistant toleave the chambers. Justice Choo was inconsiderate in asking my assistant to leave the Chambers as shewas there just to assist me in taking notes. In the English case of McKenzie v McKenzie[COURT OFAPPEAL] [No. 8496 of 1965]1970 June 11, 12 Davies, Sachs and Karminski LJs, the Appeal Court Judgeheld that: “Held, allowing the appeal, (1) that every party had the right to have a friend present incourt beside him to assist by prompting, taking notes, and quietly giving advice (post, pp.