Vincent Ng J:

[1] Due to the exceptional nature of this case, it is consistent with judicial prudence and the current mood of transparency that I should write a judgment setting out detailed grounds of my decision and delivering the same in open court. This civil suit case is as novel as it is peculiar Let me put it in stark terms. A judge of the Malaysian High court (1st defendant) has been sued for RM24,362,312 with interests and costs and the Malaysian Government (2nd defendant) has also been roped in, so to say, to bear liability as the employer of the judge. The suit which ought to have been filed in the Civil Division of the Kuala Lumpur High court, was in fact filed in my Commercial Division, presumably because 1st defendant was, at that material time, the head of the Civil Division. Having filed it in my Division, counsel for the plaintiffs wrote a letter dated 30 May 2005 to the Chief Judge Malaya (CJM) requesting that the case be heard by a judge stationed outside Kuala Lumpur Presumably, since the case was filed in my Division and it found venue in my court through the "Monday Bundle" system of allotment of cases, the CJM decided, vide letter to counsel dated 12 J