Judge Zainon binti Mohd Ali by her action ADNMITS THAT MY WIFE'S PETITION HAS CLEARLY A CAUSE OF ACTION

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI KUALA LUMPUR
( BAHAGIAN DAGANG )
PETISYEN PEMULA NO: D2-26-41 TAHUN 2001

Dalam perkara McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (nama lamanya) dikenali sebagai Relionus Adjusters Sdn Bhd)
Dan
Dalam Perkara Seksyen 181 Akta Syarikat, 1965
Dan
Dalam perkara Aturan 88 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Tinggi , 1980


Antara

Lim Choi Yin ...Pempetisyen

Dan

1. Mc Laren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
2. Wong Kem Chen (No. K/P: 500807-06-5077)
3. Stephen Lim Cheng Ban (No. K/P: 3912914)
4. Leong Yee Fook (No. K/P: 560727-10-5651)
5. Lum Siew Wai (No. K/P: 4734145) ... Responden-
6. Haris Onn bin Hussein Onn (No. K/P: 661124-10-5727) Responden




SECURITY FOR COSTS 2

I have held back discussing this 2nd part of my post under the heading security for costs 2, by way of emphasis; to separate them so that they do not get too long.

It is thoroughly disingenuous of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali to STRIKE OUT my wife’s petition claiming that her petition does not show a cause of action; as I will demonstrate herein. Please take notice that the respondents, The Company represented by Mr Kwong Sea Yoon as secretary of the company, together with Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Wong Kem Chen, Harris Onn bin Tun Hussein Onn, Lum Siew Wai & Leong Yee Fook, as directors of the company, together asked for the combined sum of rm.650,000 as security for costs; in their first application which was their application for “SECURITY FOR COSTS” and not as I have argued that of necessity their first application should have been for an order to “STRIKE OUT SAID PETITION”, and it is only upon failure of such strike out application that respondents should apply for an order for SECURITY FOR COSTS; because as I have argued ‘THE QUAMTUM OF THE SECURITY FOR COSTS” can only be determined by the judge’s proper assessment of the issues and the amount of legal work that these issues entail for their purpose of PROOF IN COURT; therefore even at this point in the court process, Judge zainon binti Mohd. Ali will have to have defined the issues of the petition so that she can give a proper assessment of the court costs that will go to prove the case of the respective litigants. THIS PROCESS THEREFORE REQUIRE JUDGE ZAINON TO KNOW THE ISSUES OF THE PETITION; and at this stage if judge Zainon finds that there is no cause of action, then it is her duty to ask Petitioner to show cause why her petition should not be struck out. JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI INSTEAD ORDERED THAT PETITIONER FURNISH SECURITY FOR COSTS OF RM.60,000 WHICH PETITIONER PAID. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali together with the conduct of the respondents, who did not apply to strike out said petition DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY (judge Zainon & respondents) SAW NO PROBLEM WITH THE CAUSE OF ACTION OF THE SAID PETITION.

The respondents & the action of judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali ONLY RAISED THE ISSUE THAT THE PETITION SHOWED NO CAUSE OF ACTION when Petitioner borrowed the rm.60,000 from our two daughters at an interest rate of 30% per annum at compound rate. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali together with the said 3 criminals had reason to believe that petitioner will not be able to raise the sum of rm.60,000 and when this sum was produced Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali and the 3 criminals APPLIED TO STRIKE OUT SAID PETITION. The respondents’ application for striking out petition was a back up action or an after thought.

THE ISSUE THEREFORE FOR THIS PART OF MY DISCUSSION IS THE QUESTION “WHY WOULD JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI REDUCE THE SECURITY FOR COSTS AWARDED TO RESPONDENTS FROM RM.650,000 TO THE FINAL SUM OF RM.60,000 (more than 11 times lower) if she had not considered the issues that form the core of the cause of action of the said petition ? There has to be BASIS FOR THE REDUCTION, the question therefore is what are the issues that caused her to amend the prohibitive sum asked for by the respondents ? If Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had, as would she would be required to do as the presiding judge, FORMULATED THE BASIS FOR ASSESSMENT OF THE QUANTUM THAT IS REQUIRED TO SECURE THE COURT COSTS OF THE RESPONDENTS, THEN THIS PROCESS OF FORMULATING THE SAID BASIS IS STATEMENT THAT JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI HAD ALREADY INDENTIFIED THE ISSUES THAT UNDERLIE THE SAID PETITION.

THIS DISCUSSION DEMONSTRATES THAT JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI HAD ABUSED HER OFFICE TO STRIKE OUT SAID PETITION EVEN WHEN SHE IS DEMOBSTRATED TO HAVE IDENTIFIED THE ISSUES THAT IS THE CORE ISSUES OF THE SAID PETITION. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali ACTED TO STRIKE OUT SAID PETITION TO PROTECT THE RESPONDENTS FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.

JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD ALI HAD BY HER ACTIONS AND FINDING ADMITTED THAT MY WIFE'S PETITION HAD A CLEARLY DEFINED CAUSE OF ACTION. How dumb can this judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali can be. Jeez ! This judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali is really "dumber than the dumbest !"