RK Nathan J:

Facts

On 29 June 1999 by way of encl. 9 the plaintiff applied ex parte for various orders against the defendants in the nature of a Mareva injunction, Anton Piller Orders and Disclosure Orders. These ex parte orders were made by this court pursuant to O. 29 r. 1(2) of the Rules of the High Court 1980 (the RHC).

The plaintiff then served the order dated 29 June 1999 (encl. 14) upon the defendants on 30 June 1999. On 2 July 1999 the defendants made an oral application inter partes to vary encl. 14 to enable the 1st defendant to carry out his daily business transactions. Whilst disputing the service of the papers the 1st defendant argued that the ex parte orders granted were too wide as to completely bring the daily business of the defendants to a halt. After hearing submissions I varied my ex parte orders (encl. 14) by my order dated 2 July 1999 (encl. 19). On 7 July 1999 the defendants applied (encl. 25) to set aside the ex parte injunction before the expiry of the 14- day requirement. Pending the disposal of encl. 25 I granted a holding over order on an inter part