Lam Hon Kay v. East Southasia Investigations Bureau
Read the full judgment text of HCSA 13/1981 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 23 February 1982.
1. When this matter first came before us for leave to appeal we granted it on the applicant telling us that on the morning of the hearing the adjudicator saw, in his chambers or in the clerk's room, both the applicant and the respondent. He saw them separately and his purpose in so doing was to effect a settlement. This is not a proper practice for adjudicators to adopt and we cannot condemn any such practice too strongly. It offends against the maxim that justice must be seen to be done. It is
|
HCSA000013/1981
Adjudicators must not see either party in the absence of the other.
BETWEEN
-------- Coram: Leonard, V-P, Zimmern J. A. and Power, J. Date: 23 February 1982 ___________ JUDGMENT ___________ 1. When this matter first came before us for leave to appeal we granted it on the applicant telling us that on the morning of the hearing the adjudicator saw, in his chambers or in the clerk's room, both the applicant and the respondent. He saw them separately and his purpose in so doing was to effect a settlement. This is not a proper practice for adjudicators to adopt and we cannot condemn any such practice too strongly. It offends against the maxim that justice must be seen to be done. It is the duty of adjudicators to adjudicate on claims not to suggest settlements to the parties individually and all the dealings of the Tribunal should be conducted in the presence of both parties. This is so basic (the respondent having confirmed the applicant's complaint) that we find it necessary at once and without further ado to order a retrial of this matter. The appeal is allowed and a retrial is ordered before another adjudicator. There will be no order as to costs as both parties appeared in person.
|