Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

[1] This is a composite appeal against two orders of the High Court at Kuala Lumpur made on two summonses touching upon the same subject matter. By the first order, the learned Judge refused an application to discharge an ex parte Mareva injunction directed against the appellants. By the second, he varied the injunction in question upon the condition that the appellants deposit a sum of RM300,000 within two weeks from the date of the order.

[2] The facts and chronology relevant to the appeal are as follows.

[3] The first appellant is the producer of motor truck shows. It wanted to stage its shows in Malaysia. For this purpose, it needed someone in this country to organise and to promote the shows. The respondent was identified to carry out this task.

[4] On 9 July 1994, an agreement was entered into between the first appellant and the respondent. One of the recitals to this agreement describes the respondent as having experience and expertise to organise and promote the shows which the first appellant had in mind. The venture involved the first appellant bringing into this country several motor trucks belonging to it, as well as the drivers who would demonstrate the versatility of the vehicles at the planned shows.

[5] Pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, the appellants brought the vehicles in question into this country and held performances which were promoted by the respondent. Moneys were collected from members of the public who gained admission to these shows.

[6] Later, while the vehicles were still in this country, disputes arose between the parties. The respondent then caused to be issued a writ and a statement of claim on 8 November 1994, claiming several sums, including the tax payable on the sums collected at the performances. On the same day, the respondent took out an ex parte summons and obtained a Mareva injunction restraining the appellants from dealing in any way with the vehicles in question (which were then in Labuan) and from dealing with the bank accounts into which the proceeds of the shows had been paid.

[7] The appellants then took out two summonses. By the first, they sought to vary the order of 8 November 1994, and by the second, they applied to have the injunction dissolved altogether. In respect of the first summons, the respondent agreed to have the injunction partially varied by consenting to a removal of the restraint over the bank accounts. The learned Judge granted the other variations sought but, as earlier observed, also directed the appellants to deposit a sum of RM300,000 in Court, although the respondent had not sought the imposition of such a requirement. Simultaneously, the learned Judge dismissed the appellants' application to set aside the injunction.

[9] First, he submitted that the affidavit in support of the ex parte summons on which the respondent obtained the injunction did not comply with the requirements of O. 29 r. 2A. For completeness, we reproduce that rule below:

(2A) The affidavit in support shall contain a clear and concise statement:

(a) of the facts giving rise to the claim against the defendant in the proceedings;

(b) of the facts giving rise to the claim for the interlocutory relief,

(c) of the facts relied on as justifying application ex parte, including details of any notice given to the defendant or, if none has been given, the reason for giving none;

(d) of any answer asserted by the defendant (or which he is thought likely to assert) either to the claim in the action or to the claim for interlocutory relief,

(e) of any facts known to the applicant which might lead the Court not to grant relief ex parte;

(f) of whether any previous similar ex parte application has been made to any other Judge, and if so, the order made in that previous application; and

(g)