Abdoolcader FJ:

This appeal involves by way of review of the exercise of its discretion by the High Court the determination of the justification for or in the alternative at least the extent and ambit of a Mareva injunction granted to the respondent in respect of moneys due to the appellant under a contract entered into with the National Electricity Board ("the Board"). The order known as a Mareva injunction - so named after the case of Mareva Compania Naviera SA v. International Bulkcarriers SA [1980] 1 All ER 213, decided in June 1975 and the second case in which the English Court of Appeal granted this form of relief - is a species of interlocutory injunction which restrains a defendant by himself or by his agents or servants or otherwise from removing from the jurisdiction or disposing of or dealing with those of his assets that will or may be necessary to meet a plaintiff's pending claim. The policy underlying and the principles governing an order of this nature have been expounded and ossified in a catenation of congeneric cases and the relief so afforded when the circumstances of a case merit it has been acknowledged by this Court in Zainal Abidin bin Haji Abdul Rahman v. Century Hotel Sdn. Bhd. [1981] CLJ 307 (Rep) in the matter of jurisdiction to avail here.

Adverting now briefly to the facts of the instant matter, the appellant entered into a contract on 30 May 1980 with the Board for the installation of electricity transmission lines in a major project in the Perak and Kelantan area and we are told that the contract sum involved is in the region of RM40 million. The appellant in turn by a contract dated 1 August 1980 sub-contracted the execution of certain works and services relating to the installation of these transmission lines to the respondent, and the contract price is stated therein to be in the region of RM10 million odd subject to variations in accordance with its provisions. The respondent claims in these proceedings a sum of RM2,025,822.40 as the amount due and payable under its sub-contract with the appellant. We should perhaps add that although there was some dispute in the Court below as to the quantum of this claim, the parties agreed before us that the amount of the claim in this sum as set out in the statement of claim should stand. We would also point out that the several sums specified in respect of this claim enumerated in the respondent's pleading are in fact supported by invoices which are verified and explained in an affidavit of the managing director of the respondent. There is then in addition to the sum we have mentioned a claim by the respondent for "damages and/or additional costs" which appears in para. 8 of the respondent's statement of claim and which we think should be set out in extenso:

8. The plaintiffs also claim against the defendants for damages and/or additional costs for delays and change of circumstances. The full particulars and actual amount of the damages and/or additional costs will be notified to the defendants and this Honourable Court before the hearing of this suit and are believed to be in the region of RM4,500,000.

The writ in this action was issued on 3 October 1983 and on the same day the respondent took out an ex parte notice of motion for a Mareva order against the appellant in respect of its moneys in two bank accounts, the plant, machinery and the like at the work site and any moneys held to the account of the appellant under the main contract entered into with the Board. An order in term of this ex parte application was made by Vohrah J, on 5 October 1983 with liberty to the appellant to apply to set aside the order within fourteen days. The appellant accordingly applied on 12 October 1983 by an inter partes summons for the order of 5 October 1983 to be set aside or in the alternative that it be varied to the extent that it restrains the sum of RM2,025,822.40 only held for its benefit under its contract with the Board. Voluminous and copious affidavi