Suriyadi Halim Omar J:

The history of this case began on 24 October 1996, when the plaintiffs applied for an order as per encl. 3, which in a gist was an Anton Piller order. The application was pursuant to O. 29 r. 2 of the Rules of the High Court 1980, under which provision the court is empowered to pronounce an order of detention, custody or preservation of any property the subject matter of the cause or matter in question. The items to be detained in this case for purposes of preservation, until the hearing of the main suit, were items like discs, videos, laser discs, and equipment connected with the copying of these items. Apart from the above statutory provision provided for in the Rules of the High Court, I was satisfied that the court also had an inherent power to make an order for the detention or preservation of the subject matters (The Supreme Court Practice, 1995, vol. 1, part 1, p. 535). This inherent power was in no way at variance with that statutory power.

Copyright is infringed by any person, who, without the consent or licence of the owner of the copyright, imports an article into Malaysia for purposes of selling, letting, distributing either for trading, exhibiting or any purposes that would affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright regarding that article. Such an infringement is actionable at the suit of the owner of that copyright and may be entitled to such remedies permitted by the High Court. In the event an exclusive licence has been granted to a particular party, that exclusive licensee shall have the same rights of action, as that of the owner of the copyright. In similar fashion he shall be entitled to the same remedies as provided for under s. 37 of the Copyright Act 1987 (Act 332).

Returning to the facts of the current case, Solid Gold Publishers Sdn Bhd and Cineart Enterprise Sdn Bhd, hereinafter called "the plaintiffs", were alleged to have copyrights to certain items by assignment vide an exclusive license. This licence which was protected by the Copyright Act 1987, conferred on the plaintiffs not only exclusive rights to the films in Malaysia, but also their supervision, inter alia, in relation to their reproduction and screening. These exclusive rights concerned Chinese and English films. The principal owners on the other hand were companies that had their bases in Taiwan, Hongkong, Singapore and United States of America. In a gist the plaintiffs were licensees. Pursuant to certain investigations it was found that this exclusive right had been breached by the named defendants as per encl. 3. Having heard the ex parte application, and being satisfied with the unchallenged prima facie evidence sworn and exhibited in encls. 4, 5, 6 and 7, I allowed the application on 24 October 1996.

On 19 June 1997 the 4th, 5th and 6th defendants, hereinafter called collectively "the applicants" applied for an order vide encl. 11, to set aside my Anton Piller order with costs. They also claimed damages. The application, supported by encl. 10 which was the affidavit of the applicants, inter alia admitted full cooperation and compliance with my order. Further, to justify their application, the applicants alleged that they had a valid agreement with the plaintiffs, through one Tan Teck Tat, who was carrying on business under the name of STV Enterprise. Even though the agreement was documented, resulting in consequential business transactions between them, the applicants unfortunately never received any letters of termination regarding this contractual relationship. As a consequence of my order, the applicants had suffered shame and financial losses. The bottom line according to the applicants, which culminated in this legal tussle, was really a matter of ringgit and sen after a botched negotiation between the parties. The Anton Piller order was the eventual weapon resorted to by the plaintiffs. If that Anton Piller order was requested merely for purposes of closing down the business of the applica