Mandatory compliance with procedural rules in contempt proceedings is essential for the validity of the leave order.

[1] This is the 1st appellant's application to set aside the ex-parte order dated 25 July 2019 (Enclosure 71) granting leave to the 1st respondent to commence committal proceedings against the 1st appellant (Leave Order) and consequently, that the Notice of Motion dated 27 July 2019 (Enclosure 70) filed by the 1st respondent for an Order for committal against the 1st appellant be struck out.

[2] The relevant cause papers are as follows:

(i) Enclosure 71- Ex-Parte Order for leave for Committal Order dated 25 July 2019 (Leave Order);

(ii) Enclosure 70 - Notice of Motion dated 29 July 2019 for an order for committal;

(iii) Enclosure 81- Notice of Motion dated 6 August 2019 to set aside the Ex- Parte Order (Leave Order);

(iv) Enclosure 61 - Notice of Motion and Statement pursuant to O 52 r 3 of the Rules of 2012 dated 16 July 2019 (the Statement);

(v) Enclosure 62 - 1st Respondent's Affidavit Verifying/In Support affirmed on 16 July 2019 (the 1st Respondent's Affidavit (1));

(vi) Enclosure 66 -1st Respondent's Further Affidavit affirmed on 23 July 2019 (the 1st Respondent's Affidavit (2));

(vii) Enclosure 82 - 1st Appellant's Affidavit affirmed on 6 August 2019 in opposing Enclosure 70 and supporting Enclosure 81 (the 1st Appellant's Affidavit (1)); and

(viii) Enclosure 88 -1st Respondent's Affidavit in Reply affirmed on 9 August 2019 (the 1st Respondent's Affidavit (3)).

[3] We heard submissions on encl 81 on 20 August 2019 and we adjourned for our deliberation and decision.

Background Facts

[4] The 1st appellant, 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents are siblings and the lawful children of Tan Kim Choon (the deceased). The 2nd appellant is the wife of the 1st appellant.

[5] Numerous disputes arose between the appellants and the respondents revolving around the deceased's estate. Various actions were filed at the High Court. One of them is Suit No: WA-22NCVC-703-10/2018 which was filed at the Kuala Lumpur High Court (KL probate action).

[6] Pending the determination of the KL probate action, the 1st respondent filed encl 6, primarily pursuant to s 19 of the Probate and Administration Act 1959 for an order to appoint an Administrator Pendente Lite to administer the deceased's estate pending the determination of the KL probate action. The High Court allowed the 1st respondent's application on 7 December 2018 (the High Court order).

[7] Dissatisfied with the High Court order, the 1st and 2nd appellant filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

[8] The 1st and 2nd appellants filed applications for stay of the High Court order but the applications were dismissed by the High Court.

[9] Both appellants on 4 January 2019 and 7 January 2019, filed applications in encl 10 and 18 respectively for stay of the High Court order or alternatively for an order that the status quo of the KL probate action to be maintained pending the disposal of the appellants' appeal. On 12 January 2019, the 2nd and 3rd respondents (the 3rd and 4th defendant in the High Court) filed application in encl 25 to intervene in the proceedings.

[10] All three applications were fixed and heard together before this Court on 21 February 2019. There were no objections to encl 25 and we allowed the application with costs to follow the event. As for encls 10 and 18, an order for the interim preservation of assets as listed in Schedules A and B of encl 11 (the affidavit filed in support of encl 10) was allowed pending the disposal of the appeal (Stay Order). The order for an interim preservation of assets in the Stay Order reads as follows:

"kesemua hartanah dan aset yang disenaraikan dalam Jadual A dan B (seperti dilampirkan) dipelihara sementara, di mana tiada pelupusan, pemindahan ataupun penyerahan hak aset-aset tersebut dibenarkan sementara menunggu pelupusan akhir rayuan ini" [All properties