The court reaffirmed its authority to enforce orders and compel compliance, emphasizing the balance between confidentiality and legal obligations under the Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act.

Enclosure 28

[1] This was an application by way of a summons in chambers by the proposed intervener for the following orders:

(1) that the proposed intervener be granted leave to intervene and be made a party to this action and to take part in this action for the purpose of setting aside or of varying the orders of this honourable court made on 23 May 1998 (encl. 7), 1 June 1998 (encl. 12) and 18 May 1999 (encl. 30) respectively (hereinafter referred to as the "said orders");

(2) that the title of the proceedings be amended in subsequent proceedings in this action to include the name of the proposed intervener as intervener, such other title as this honourable court deems fit;

(3) that the said orders be set aside or varied in so far as they concern the proposed intervener and in so far as they have directed the proposed intervener to provide the plaintiff with complete information on the shares held by the defendant;

(4) that the costs incidental to this application be taxed and paid forthwith by the plaintiff; and

(5) such other and further relief as this honourable court deems fit.

[2] The grounds of the application were said to be, inter alia, in the following terms:

(a) the proposed intervener has been directly affected by the granting of the said orders; and

(b) compliance with the said orders would result in a contravention of a statute, to wit, the Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991 .

[3] Enclosure 28 was supported by an affidavit of Benothini a/p Bascaran ("Benothini") that was affirmed on 21 July 1999 as seen in encl. 27. Benothini affirmed that affidavit in her capacity as the senior legal officer of the proposed intervener and she deposed that she was duly authorised by the proposed intervener to affirm the affidavit on its behalf. She also deposed that the facts advanced in the affidavit were within her own personal knowledge save as otherwise stated. She then craved leave of the court to refer to the said orders. She deposed that by the said orders, the proposed intervener was required to provide the plaintiff with a complete information on the shares held by the defendant. Benothini deposed further and alluded to the fact that the proposed intervener was said to be a company approved by the minister of finance under s 5 of the Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991 to establish and operate a system for the central handling of securities whether or not listed on any stock exchange and to provide other facilities and services incidental thereto. Benothini deposed further and said that in the proposed intervener's operation, all securities were deposited with and held in custody by, or registered in the name of the proposed intervener or its nominee company for the depositors, and the dealings in respect of those securities were effected by means of entries in securities amounts without the physical delivery of scrips. It was further deposed that under the proposed intervener's operation it permitted and facilitated the settlement of securities transactions or dealings in securities without the physical delivery of scrips. To achieve these objectives it was said that it was essential, subject to exceptions, that strict confidentiality be maintained on trading and ownership of securities. It was for these reasons, so said Benothini, that s 43 of the was enacted. Benothini categorically deposed that the securities in the name of the defendant deposited with and held in the custody of the proposed intervener