JUDGMENT

Gordon-Smith J:

[1] The facts and arguments appear sufficiently from the judgment.

[2] This is a motion by Dr Withers-Payne, counsel for Republic Pictures International Corporation for the necessary leave under O 42 r 1 to issue a write of attachment against the respondents, Run Run Shaw and Runme Shaw, in respect of alleged contempt of Court by obstructing or attempting to obstruct or threatening by proceedings in a foreign Court the applicants in the prosecution and conduct of Civil Suit 686 of 1948 instituted by them in this Court against the respondents trading as Eastern Film Agency.

[3] It is necessary, therefore, to set out the details of these other proceedings with relevant dates. Throughout this judgment I will refer to the applicants as the plaintiffs and the respondents as the defendants, as in fact they are, in Civil Suit 686 of 1948.

[4] On the 6 November 1948, the plaintiffs issued a writ of summons against the defendants claiming (1) damages for breach of a contract in writing dated the 22 January 1947; (2) an injunction restraining the defendants from exhibiting, distributing etc. films of the plaintiffs; (3) specific performance of cls 9 and 13 of the said agreement, and other minor reliefs.

[5] On the 13 November 1948, after various other steps had been taken in the suit, a motion by the plaintiffs was made for an immediate injunction in terms of the claim endorsed on the writ Mr Seth appeared for the defendants and on his undertaking that cls 16 and 18 of the said agreement would be complied with, Dr Withers-Payne consented to an adjournment of the motion until the 23rd November Such adjournment was extended until the 30th November when, at the hearing it transpired that cabled information had been received by both parties that a suit had been filed in New York by the defendants against the plaintiffs also asking for an injunction and a further adjournment was agreed to, although Dr Withers-Payne did mention at this hearing that this New York suit appeared to be merely obstructing and possibly a contempt of this Court. I will now deal with what happened in New York from affidavits made there and filed here subsequently.

[6] On the 22 November 1948, and as a result of advice and instructions received and given by a Mr Benefico the New York agent of the defendants, Messrs. Schwartz & Frohlich a New York firm of Attorneys filed a suit on behalf of the Eastern Film Agency or, in other words, the defendants against the plaintiffs for reformation or rectification of the said agreement of the 22 January 1947, and apparently a temporary injunction was also claimed against the plaintiffs in respect of this agreement. The motion for this temporary injunction was fixed for hearing on the 1st December but at the request of the counsel for the plaintiffs (the defendants to the action in New York) and by consent such motion was adjourned until the 5 January 1949.

[7] Apparently at the hearing of the motion for the injunction the New York Court dismissed the claim unconditionally. I am not aware of any further steps having been taken in the New York suit.

[8] On the 11 January 1949, the plaintiffs filed the present motion for contempt as detailed above, which motion was argued before me on the 17th instant, after which I reserved judgment.

[9] I might perhaps mention here that the said agreement of the 22 January 1947, was entered into in New York, the parties being the plaintiffs, a Company incorporated in the State of Delaware, having its principle office in Now York and the defendants, Run Run Shaw and Runme Shaw doing business under the firm name of Eastern Film Agency at Robinson Road, Singapore, by their agent, Amerigo Benefico.

[10] For the plaintiffs Dr Withers-Payne argued that any obstruction by a defendant of a plaintiff in the prosecution of a suit was a contempt of Court unless such action by the defendant was in the exercise of a legal right but he agreed that the contempt alleged was a new type of such obstru