IS DAVID HOH STILL REPRESENTING PETITIONER ?

Yap Chong Yee,
19 th September, 2007
http://www.yapchongyee.blogspot.com
Email :yapchongyee@yahoo.com.au
To,
Mr David Hoh,
M/s Lim & Hoh,
Solicitors

Dear Mr David Hoh,

Re Lim Choi Yin -V- McLarens Sdn. Bhd.

I have not received any response from you in spite of my several fax to your firm requesting that you forthwith proceed to apply for the following :

(1) that Petitioner be given leave to enter default judgment, on the grounds that 1st respondent company had abandoned their defense;
(2) alternatively, that petitioner be given leave to set this petition down for hearing;
(3) that petitioner be given leave to treat the supporting affidavit of respondent Stephen Lim Cheng ban, dated 17th September, 2004, as THIRD PARTY ACTION and to make Stephen Lim Cheng Ban as Plaintiff against Petitioner as Defendant in the THIRD PARTY ACTION.

I had earlier faxed to you the basis of my opinion. The order to strike out said petition that was awarded to Stephen Lim Cheng Ban by Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali will not change the status of the earlier order that was also awarded to respondents by Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali that a security for costs in the sum of Rm.60,000 be made available to the respondents. Petitioner had paid the sum ordered to the respondents as ordered by Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali; and that being the case, the order to strike out petition is unenforceable and the trial of the petition must go on.

Mr David Hoh, you have not responded to my many attempts to communicate with you on this matter; ARE YOU STILL ACTING FOR US ? This case has been going for almost 8 years. Let me impress upon you that there is no issue that is suitable for you to take to the COURT OF APPEAL because the security for costs has been paid. Striking out is meant to save costs; and since respondents each having been paid their Rm.10,000 each their costs in already in their pocket; not to mention that such irregularity is unprecedented in all of commonwealth history where English Common Law is practiced. Remember that the cash for the security for costs was ORDERED BY judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali to be paid into the hands of the respondents (each receiving Rm.10,000). This would make respondents liable for obtaining money under false pretenses or obtaining money by fraud and Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali in right in the middle of such a ridiculous situation for aiding & abetting the perpetration of this criminal offences by making her order that petitioner PAY HER RM.60,000 DIRECT TO THE RESPONDENTS’ LAWYERS when there was no intention from the judge, & the respondents to try the said petition.

Mr David Hoh, ARE YOU STILL ACTING FOR OUR FAMILY, or have you discharged yourself unilaterally, AS YOU DID ONCE BEFORE because as you alleged that my letters that complained of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali unethical, dishonest, and criminal behaviour had caused you many problems because each time you were summoned before the judge to explain to her MY PERSONAL BEHAVIOUR; please respond to my enquiry on this matter ( I MEAN THE ISSUE WHETHER YOU ARE STILL REPRESENTING MY FAMILY.

Please remember that as the Petition stands today IN THE FACE OF JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI’S RIDICULOUS TWO CONTRADICTING COURT ORDERS, There is nothing to appeal against and your effort to have judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s order to strike out SET ASIDE is a whole lot of nonsense, because the order to strike out is unenforceable; that being the case the order for security for costs PREVAILS. The only correct cause of action for your to pursue is to apply for the orders that I have set out above.

LET ME SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU, THE ORDER TO STRIKE OUT CANNOT BE ENFORCEABLE BECAUSE RESPONDENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID THEIR SECURITY FOR COSTS; AND THEY CAN ONLY RETURN THE SECURITY FOR COSTS UNDER AN ORDER MADE PURSUANT TO AN ORDER AWARDING THE COSTS THAT HAS BEEN ASSESSED UNDER A BILL OF COSTS. That being the case YOU DAVID HOH HAVE NO REASON FOR APPEAL. Only the order for security for costs remains alive; but the order to strike out cannot be enforceable, so what are you appealing from; there is nothing that stands in your way.

My wife and I will not be available from 20th September, 2007 for a period of 2 months; will you please clarify your position before that time ? I will post your response on this blogg, because there is no way that I can communicate with you. Your kind co-operation will be greatly appreciated. Let me make it clear to you that as from now all communication of whatever nature between us will be published on this blogg.


Yapchongyee


Copy fax to President & Secreatry of Malaysian Bar Council, Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali. Email to all lawyers in my email list.