Alauddin Mohd Sheriff JCA:

On 29 March 1996 the respondents obtained an ex parteorder of injunction from the High Court, Penang. Since the ex parteinjunction order was good for only two weeks the respondents, by way of summons-in-chambers dated 5 April 1996 (encl. 7) applied inter partesfor an interlocutory injunction to restrain the appellants from causing or permitting piling and/or related building works to continue on the appellants' site and/or causing or permitting to continue any vibration or nuisance of a like kind pending the determination of an alternative system of piling.

Three days later ie, on 8 April 1996 the appellants filed an application under encl. 13 to set aside the ex parteinjunction order dated 29 March 1996.

The learned judge heard both encls. 7 and 13 together. At the end of the hearing ie, on 15 May 1996 he granted an order for an injunction as prayed for by the respondents in encl. 7 and dismissed the appellants' application under encl. 13.

The appellants now appeal to us against the whole of the decision of the learned judge given on 15 May 1996.

For a summary of the background facts to this appeal we cannot improve upon that provided by the learned judge in his judgment appearing at pp. 81 to 83 of Volume 1A of the Appeal Record. The summary is as follows:

(1) The respondents, a private limited company incorporated in Malaysia were at all material times the registered proprietor and occupier of the property known as Holdings No 21 and 22, Town Subdivision 19, North East District, Penang, on which stands the premises commonly known as Cheong Fatt Tze Mansion (the Mansion).

(2) The appellants were the registered proprietor of an adjacent land known as Holding No. 23, Town Subdivision 19, North East District, Penang on which the Hotel Continental (the Hotel) is situated.

(3) At the material time the appellants were in the process of building a 20-storey extension to the Hotel on the small portion of their said property at the back of the Hotel (the extension site).

(4) This extension site faces the back portion of the Mansion, separated only by an eighteen (18) feet wide service road.

(5) The appellants commenced building works on the extension site on or about 18.3.96 and had caused piling works to be carried out by means of hydraulic piling system. The system employed involves hammering pre-stressed or preformed large displacement concrete piles into the ground.

(6) The respondent's case is that they had purchased the Mansion about four years ago (prior to this incident) at the approximate price of RM2.75 million and they later expended a further sum of about RM3 million for the purpose of restoration works including preserving and conserving the features and fabric and tapestry of the building to its original state.

(7) In their affidavits the respondents claim that in order to restore the mansion as a heritage building, considerable time, effort and expense had to be expended in engaging expert craftsmen from China to supervise the restoration works which included intricate and delicate porcelain tapestry works.

(8) By virtue of the appellants' continuous piling works, the respondents claim that severe cracks have appeared on the walls of the Mansion due directly to the excessive vibrations created by such method of piling employed.

(9) It is imperative that unless an alternative system of piling is adopted to avert such vibrations or pressures on the Mansion the very safety and structural stability of the Mansion would be endangered, considering the age and foundation of the building and other features peculiar to buildings of that era.

(10) Although the respondents have approached the appellants to cease the said piling works pending the adoption of an alternative piling system to avert vibrations and to avoid any damage to the Mansion the appellants have refused to heed the respondent's request. The respondents were left with no choice but to apply for the said injunction.

Before us th