ROBERTS, CJ.:

PRELIMINARY

On 11th May, 1996,1 delivered a written judgment, setting out my reasons for allowing the appeal of the plaintiff against an Order of a Registrar, dated 9th April, 1996, that the plaintiff should provide security for costs In the sum of $10,000, to be paid Into Court, on or before 9th May, 1996.

Later on the same day, 11th May, 1996, the defendant, under Order 56 (2), applied for the matter to be adjourned into Court for further argument.

This Order empowers the Judge, If he hears further argument, to set aside the Order previously made by him and make such other order as he thinks fit.

I was assured that additional evidence, not available at the previous hearing on 7th May, 1996, would be advanced and that it might have induced me, if presented on that occasion, to come to a different conclusion.

I therefore decided to accede to the defendant's request and hear further argument from both parties on 16th May, 1996.

[Page 2]

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.

At the hearing on 16th May, 1996,1 considered four additional affidavits:

(a) The plaintiffs affidavit affirmed in Bangladesh on 6th May, 1996;

(b) An affidavit of Md Ismail bin Hj Moklasur L. Rahman ("Ismail") the brother of the plaintiff, dated 15th May, 1996;

(c) The first affidavit, dated 11th May, 1996, of Abdul Hamld bin Kassim, ("Hamid") the employer of the plaintiff in Brunei Darussalam;

(d) The second affidavit of Hamid, dated 16th May, 1996.

FINDINGS ON ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.

In addition to the above mentioned affidavits, I also took into account chits from doctors in Brunei Darussalam, to the effect that the plaintiff was only capable of light work, from 24th March, 1996.

According to the first affidavit of Hamid, of 11th May, the plaintiff earned about $360 a month while working in 1994 for Brunei Shell.

The chits support the view that the plaintiff may have been unable to work for more than 8 months after the accident.

Probably the estimate by Hamid is too low, as it does not take account of overtime. The view expressed in my earlier judgment, that the plaintiff lost wages of about $4000 as a result of the accident, may have been somewhat generous, but not such as would have persuaded me to alter that figure.

However, I am satisfied that the plaintiff was not to be believed, when he asserted that he had to pay medical expenses himself.

Hamid, in his affidavit of 11th May, asserted that he was obliged to pay $2002.50 for the medical expenses of the plaintiff; as he was obliged to do by terms of the contract of employment signed by him and the plaintiff on 5th June, 1995.

[Page 3]

Hamid denied, in his affidavit of 11th May, that Ismail had paid any sum to him for the medical expenses of the plaintiff, except for a sum of $52.00 paid to RIPAS for the loan of crutches and refundable.

Ismail, the brother of the plaintiff, says that he gave Hamid the money for the plaintiffs hospital expenses and that Hamid is not correct in claiming to have paid for them.

In his affidavit of 6th May, the plaintiff said that -

"Since I am a foreigner working in Brunei all the hospital expenses were borne by me".

It is to be noted that the receipt issued by RIPAS, for the medical expenses of the plaintiff, records that these were received, on 4th September, 1995, from Ismail Electrical Contractor, which Is the firm owned by Hamid.

I have no doubt that the bill for medical expenses was paid by Hamid, who was obliged to do so, and not by the plaintiff, either directly or through his brother Ismail.

If this information had been available at the earlier hearing, would I have been disposed to allow the appeal?

I attached some weight to the fact that, as I then believed, the plaintiff had been obliged to defray heavy bills himself. What is, perhaps, more important, is that the credibility of the plaintiff has been adversely affected by his failure to tell the truth on a matter of some importance.

If I had known that the major medical expenses had been paid by Hamid, as I