JUDGE ZAINON, HAVING ORDERED SECURITY FOR COSTS AND DULY PAID BY PETITIONER CANNOT REFUSE TO ORDER TRIAL !

I had earlier posted an opinion “security for costs 3” as set out below. I had submitted my opinion that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali can only but MAKE ONE ORDER of the 2 orders that were made by her, that Petition be struck out for showing no cause of action and she also thought mistakenly so, that she also had the power to ORDER SECURITY FOR COSTS in addition to her order to strike out petition.

I have reproduced from wikipaedia (the most extensive internet research library in the world; to access, go to google.com and type in english common law) the relevant opinion on the issue and to discuss this in relation to my original opinion. The most important sentence from my perspective is : “Furthermore, the amount that is ordered by the Judge is in direct correlation to the strength or weakness of the plantiff's case brought herewith.The weaker the probability of the plantiff prevailing, the higher the security order.
I had stated in my opinion below, exactly in these terms. I had maintained that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had reduced the respondents’ total request for the sum of RM.650,000 as security for costs to the lower sum of RM.60,000; and I had maintained that for judge Zainon to reduce the sum asked for to a lower sum she IS DEEMED TO HAVE ASSESSED THE LOWER SUM FROM A CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES OF THE PETITION, and therefore from this perspective judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali is deemed to have found that said Petition has a strong case AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS. From this position Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali cannot then later go on to strike out said Petition. I had also maintained that having ordered petitioner to pay RM. 60,000 as security for costs, her order for security for costs PRE-SUPPOSED THE TRIAL TO FOLLOW UPON THE PAYMENT OF THE SUM OF RM.60,000.
Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali can but make only one order, but not TWO SIMULTANEOUSLY. She ordered petitioner to pay security for costs which petitioner did and petitioner is entitled to her day in court.
Petitioner must not be penalised because Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali does not sufficiently know the law. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s judgment of TWO CONTRADICTING ORDERS is an embarrassment to her high office. The inherent contradictions of her NONSENSE ORDERS makes me blush !


Security for costs
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Security for costs is a common law legal concept of application only in costs jurisdictions, and is an order sought from a court in litigation.
The general rule in costs jurisdiction is that "costs follow the event". In other words, the loser in legal proceedings must pay the legal costs of the successful party. Where a defendant has a reasonable apprehension that its legal costs will not be paid for by the plaintiff if the defendant is successful, the defendant can apply to the court for an order that the plaintiff provide security for costs. Furthermore, the amount that is ordered by the Judge is in direct correlation to the strength or weakness of the plantiff's case brought herewith.The weaker the probability of the plantiff prevailing, the higher the security order.
Typically a plaintiff will be outside the jurisdiction of the court: the law of security for costs recognises that orders of the court relating to payment of a party's legal costs can be very difficult to enforce in non-common law jurisdictions, and so will order security to be provided. Security can also be ordered where a plaintiff is insolvent, or prone to vexatious litigation.
Security is usually provided in the form of a bank cheque paid into the court, or held in a trust account operated jointly by both the plaintiff's and defendant's lawyers.
If the defendant is successful, the money can be applied against the costs order. If the plaintiff is successful, the security is returned to the plaintiff.

SECURITY FOR COSTS 3

My friend who read my opinion on this subject suggested that I clarify, what I meant by saying that I could walk away from Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s “Order To Strike Out with Costs.”

This is fair comment and I think it is a good idea. In my discussion I found that logic, the Law and comment sense dictate that the application to “STRIKE OUT PETITION MUST PRECEED THE APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS; because for judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali to decide what quantum of security is sufficient to secure the likely COURT COSTS that respondents will incur to defend their case CAN ONLY BE CALCULATED BY KNOWING WHAT THE ISSUES ARE IN THE SAID PETITION. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali reduced the respondents’ application for the sum of RM.650,000 for security for costs to a more realistic sum of RM.60,000 is evidence that she had considered the issues supporting the said Petition; and the fact that judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had made an ORDER THAT THE SUM OF RM.60,000 BE PAID INTO COURT is her statement that the likely costs for the trial of the petition is likely to be RM.60,000 because SECURITY FOR COSTS is only a contingent payment paid by the Petitioner if Petitioner wants the trial to proceed further; or she may choose not to proceed. If Petitioner chooses not to proceed, she can elect to “ABANDON” her Petition; she can just choose not to appear from that point. Respondents can then ask the court to order the dismissal of the petition with costs; then it will be up to respondents to come to Perth, Australia, to file a claim in our Perth Court for the likely sum of RM.250 ! Joke la ! THIS THEN IS WHAT I MEANT BY, “I can walk away from judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali; and it is to prevent this from happening that SECURITY FOR COSTS IS INTENDED.

From the logic of Law & common sense JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ORDER “STRIKE OUT WITH COSTS” and then to make another ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS OF RM.60,000. Common sense and logic dictates that the ORDER “to strike out” CANNOT EXIST together with the ORDER imposing SECURITY FOR COSTS (they exist together similar to the law of science, “LIKE POLES OF TWO MAGNETS REPEL EACH OTHER”). I really think judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali will not understand what this law of “two like poles of two magnets mean, but I cannot illustrate it better so I hope some one will explain to her. Actually, the idea is quite elementary, IF ZAINON STRIKE OUT SAID PETITION THEN THERE WILL NOT BE ANY TRIAL (the bloody petition does not exist anymore, so why ORDER THAT PETITIONER PROVIDE SECURITY FOR COSTS THAT WILL NOT EXIST BECAUSE THERE WILL NOT BE A TRIAL ? This conundrum is so elementary AND YET THIS JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI MISSED THEIR CONTRADICTION. I really cannot blame Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali too much because my wife’s counsel too did not see “THE CONTRADICTION”; he poo poof my argument, but judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali gets along with him quite famously; like minds think alike.


SIMPLE :WHEN PETITION IS STRUCK OUT WITH COSTS IT MEANS THAT THE PETITION DOES NOT EXIST ANY LONGER, THERE IS NO TRIAL, THEREFORE THERE IS NO COURT COSTS, AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO NEED FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS.

SIMPLE : ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS RM.60,000 MEANS THAT COURT COSTS FOR RESPONDENTS, AS ASSESSED BY JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI, HAVING CONSIDERED ALL THE ISSUES OF THE PETITION IS LIKELY TO BE RM.60,000. THIS MEANS THAT JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI HAVING CONSIDERED THE ISSUES OF THE CASE THINKS THAT THE COSTS WILL LIKELY TO BE RM.60,000. THIS IS EVIDENCE THAT JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI DOES NOT THINK THAT THE SAID PETITION LACKS A CAUSE OF ACTION.

Remember my analogy “LIKE POLES OF A MAGNET REPELS”. DO NOT BOTHER TO ASK JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI WHAT THAT MEANS, BECAUSE I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT SHE NEVER STUDIED SCIENCE; I will bet my pension on that.