Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali knows shit !

SECURITY FOR COSTS

In this post/letter I will expose the viciousness of judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali and what makes her character truly unprofessional, unethical and thoroughly devoid of moral capital to serve as a judge of the HIGH COURT OF MALAYSIA OR ANYWHERE ELSE; she is vicious and vindictive. I seek to expose her for what an evil woman she is.

Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, at the start of the 1st day of hearing of the petition asked my wife’s council if his client will withdraw her application for leave to cross examine the three criminals Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Wong Kem Chen & Kwong Sea Yoon FOR PERJURY that my wife charged the said 3 criminals had affirmed in their supporting affidavits backing their application for SECURITY FOR COSTS. To confirm the truth of my statement, that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had made this unethical and an act that is conduct unbecoming of her office as the presiding judge for the hearing of the said petition, I discussed this ISSUE WITH a former classmate of mine who was then a serving judge of the Court of Appeal, whose name I will not mention at this point. HE ADVISED ME NOT TO WITHDRAW THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO CROSS EXAMINE THE SAID 3 CRIMINALS.

My wife accordingly instructed her council that he was not to withdraw her application for leave to cross examine Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Kwong Sea Yoon and Wong Kem Chen. It was at this point that I wrote to the Chief Judge, Tun Fairoz that judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had behaved in a manner that shows her bias that would be prejudicial to the proper conduct of the hearing of the petition. Take note of this part of the discussion :

(1)I had come to KL for the sole purpose of writing to the Chief Judge, Bar Council, with copy to Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali that she had improperly canvassed my wife’s council to withdraw my wife’s application for leave to cross examine the 3 criminals Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Wong Kem C & Kwong Sea Yoon. I had not made known to my wife’s solicitors that I was in KL. I wrote to the above officials and handed the letters by hand at the High Court at KL. I handed the letters at noon and in the evening of the same day, I received a phone call from my wife’s solicitors that he wanted to see me the next morning. I WAS SURPRISED TO HEAR FROM HIM SINCE I HAD NO INTENTION OF INFORMING HIM WHAT I WAS DOING IN KL. I asked him how he came to know that I was in KL, because it was my intention not to involve him for his own protection. He gave me the excuse that he wanted to discuss with me on some matter that had to do with some affidavit. I asked him “what affidavit ? He said not to worry just come to his office anyway. I suspected that it has to do with judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali and my complaint to the Chief Judge of her conduct unbecoming and an ABUSE OF HER OFFICE.

As the story unfurls I was correct in my assumption; MY WIFE’S COUNCIL WANTED ME TO WITHDRAW MY LETTER OF COMPLAINT TO THE CHIEF JUDGE. I told him that the judge had behaved in a thoroughly improper manner and that she was out to DAMAGE THE JUST CAUSE OF OUR PETITION. However, he went on about how he has to face the judge in his practice and that I will cause him to loose favour with the judges. I THEN TOLD HIM THAT I WILL SIGN THE LETTER THAT HE WILL PUT BEFORE ME, BUT THAT IF ANY ISSUES THAT ARISES FROM THIS MATTER, THEN I WILL TELL THE DETAILS AS HAD HAPPENED, as I am detailing it herein.

He then made me wait in his office, while his “partner” engaged me in “idle chit chat”. He then went on to telephone Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali and the two of them (judge zainon binti Mohd. Ali & my wife’s council) went into a huddle to draft the letter that will absolve judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali; and that I should sign it and to be forwarded to the Chief Judge. I really did not read the letter as I said I will not; to this day I do not know what was written in that letter. I know that that letter was ddrafted by judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali and my wife’s counsel.

I come now to the issue of the difference between SECURITY FOR COSTS AND COSTS OF THE APPLICATION. This difference is very important for the purpose of my discussion and their difference will demonstrate that judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had abused her office in order that my wife will loose not only for the strike out of her petition BUT MORE THAN THAT, MY WIFE WILL LOOSE HER RM60,000 SECURITY FOR COSTS THAT SHE HAD ALREADY PAID IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT ORDER MADE BY JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI.

SECURITY FOR COSTS is ordered in cases where one of the litigant lives out of the jurisdiction of the court in KL. My wife is Australian and we live in Australia, that said Judge had every right to order security for costs; I will not dispute her right to do that. IT IS HOW SHE DID IT THAT CAUSED MY WIFE TO LOSE HER RM60,000 NEEDLESSLY THAT I TAKE ISSUE WITH JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD.ALI as a woman who abused her office as judge to avenge the slight or insult that I had inflicted on her.

SECURITY FOR COSTS is a payment made to the court TO SECURE THE CONTINGENT PAYMENT TO AN OPPOSING LITIGANT WHO HAS WON COSTS AGAINST THE LITIGANT WHO HAS LOST HIS CASE AND WHO IS ORDERED TO PAY COURT COSTS TO THE WINNNER OF THE CASE. Remember, that security for costs IS ONLY TO SECURE A “CONTINGENT LIABILITY FOR COURT COSTS”; such costs may or may not arise dependant on the final outcome of the trial; therefore, payment out of the security for costs is for a sum that has arisen out of the trial. If there is no trial then THERE IS AND CANNOT BE ANY SECURITY FOR COSTS. At this point I can hear the ignorance of this illiterate judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali say, YES! I JUDGE ZAINON ORDERED THAT THE PETITION BE STRUCK OUT WITH COSTS AND THEREFORE, RESPONDENTS CAN TAKE THEIR COSTS OUT OF THE SECURITY FOR COSTS.” “I judge Zainon have the power to order security for costs to secure the respondents costs arising out of their application to strike out petition. THIS BY THE WAY IS HOW MY WIFE’S COUNSEL AGREES WITH JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI.

I say it is the wrong interpretation of the issue of security for costs AS OPPOSED TO AN ORDER TO STRIKE OUT WITH COSTS. It is common sense and logic that dictates that an application for striking out a cause of action MUST OF NECESSITY PRECEED AN APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS; because at the first day of hearing of any cause of action, THE FIRST ISSUE THAT HAS TO BE DECIDED (in a case where a litigant resides out of the jurisdiction) is “WHAT IS THE LIKELY CONTINGENT COURT COSTS TO BE”. To decide the likely QUANTUM OF THE CONTINGENT COURT COSTS, the judge must TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT THE NATURE OF THE TRIAL IS GOING TO BE; from a consideration of the issues of the cause of action. It is for this reason that AN APPLICATION FOR STRIKING OUT FOR SHOWING NO CAUSE OF ACTION MUST PRECEED THE APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS. Therefore, IF THE PETITION SHOWS NO CAUSE OF ACTION THEN THE JUDGE MUST STRIKE OUT WITH COSTS; and since the striking out of my wife’s petition is not going to go to trial, there cannot be any court costs arising out of a “NO TRIAL”. Therefore, judge Zainon binti mohd. Ali has no power in the circumstances to order security for costs and to order striking out with costs. I AM CERTAIN THIS DISCUSSION WILL FLY OVER JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI’S HEAD(poor girl judge Zainon, this discussion is too difficult ! la!). I am writing to members of the Malaysian Bar Council, and I am sure some of you at the Bar will understand my arguments.

From the preceding discussion, it follows that if once security for costs is ORDERED it must logically follow that the SECURITY FOR COSTS is intended to secure the respondents’ court costs that they incur in the TRIAL TO FOLLOW. Remember IT IS SECURITY FOR COSTS and the costs is the costs that arise out of the trial OF THE PETITION. In the case of the striking out of the petition with costs as ordered by judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, this costs is not the costs that is envisaged by the provision of the SECURITY FOR COSTS. I can walk away from the costs that is ordered together with the striking out of the petition. THIS IS EXACTLY WHY SECURITY FOR COSTS IS ENVISAGED; it is to secure the winners’ court costs only in the event that said petitioner looses.

It follows that since Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali has ORDERED THAT PETITIONER PAY RM.60,000 AS SECURITY FOR COSTS AND SHE ACKNOWLEGED THAT PETITIONER HAS PAID THIS SUM INTO COURT (so to speak), SHE HAS IN FACT AND IN LAW AFFIRMED THAT THERE IS A CAUSE OF ACTION; as the discussion goes JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI IS TOO STUPID AND TOO ILLITERATE IN LAW AND TOO LACKING IN LOGIC AND COMMON SENSE TO KNOW THAT SHE HAS AT THE SAME TIME AFFIRMED THAT PETITIONER HAS A VALID CAUSE OF ACTION BY ORDERING SECURITY FOR COSTS; but that she is at the same time too stupid to think that she also has the power to ORDER THE STRIKE OUT OF SAID PETITION with costs.

Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali has been promoted well OVER HER NATURAL AND PROFESSIONAL CAPABILITIES; A DUMBO DOING THE JOB OF A HIGH COURT JUDGE. WHAT IS NEW IN MALAYSIA ?