(delivering judgment of the court): On 9 December 1998, the plaintiff Senwara Development Sdn Bhd (the respondent) obtained a Mareva injunction together with a mandatory injunction against the defendant Tycoon Realty Sdn Bhd (the appellant) in the High Court at Kota Kinabalu in Sabah. As is usual in applications for Mareva injunctions, the application was made ex parte. The ex parte mandatory order that was obtained in addition to the Mareva order reads:

(2) that the defendants do forthwith disclose the full value of their

assets within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court

identifying with full particulars the nature of such assets and

their whereabouts and whether the same be held in their own name

or by nominees or otherwise on their behalf and in the case of

the amount standing in each such account, such disclosure to be

verified by an affidavit to be made by its proper officer and

served on the plaintiffs solicitors within 14 days after the

service of this order upon the defendants.

On 22 December 1998, the defendant (Tycoon Realty) filed an application to have the ex parte interim injunction set aside. The judge in the court below heard the application on 28 December 1998 and he found that: As there was nothing to set aside (the order having automatically lapsed), the defendants application had become academic. He then struck off the defendants application with no order as to costs. The defendant was dissatisfied with the way the court below had made short shrift of its application and it appealed to this court.

Order 29 r 1(2B) of the Rules of the High Court 1980 (the RHC), states:

Unless sooner revoked or set aside, an interim injunction obtained on

an ex parte application shall automatically lapse at the end of two

weeks from the date on which it is granted.

The ex parte interim injunction was obtained on 9 December 1998. We do not know when the order was served on the defendant (although there is a letter from the defendants solicitor to the plaintiffs solicitor dated 14 December 1998 which states: Our clients are in receipt of the ex parte order of the court dated 9 December 1998). However, this is not important because O 29 r 1(2B) states that such ex parte interim injunction shall automatically lapse at the end of two weeks from the date on which it is granted. At the time when the defendants application to set aside the ex parte interim injunction was filed (ie 22 December 1999), the ex parte order had not lapsed yet, but by the time the application was heard (ie on 28 December 1998) the order had already lapsed.

Although the Mareva injunction had lapsed at the end of two weeks from the date on which it was granted, we must not forget that there is still the other ex parte interim mandatory injunction (although that would have lapsed too at the end of two weeks from the date on which it was granted) which may expose the defendant to contempt proceedings if it is not set aside. The mandatory order requires the defendant to make full disclosure of all its assets and to state the amount standing to its credit on all its accounts on oath and served on the plaintiffs solicitors within 14 days after the service of [the] order upon the defendants. Unless it is set aside, this mandatory order is enforceable against the defendant for non compliance of it from the date on which the order was served on the defendant (which was probably on 14 December 1998) because on the date when it was served, the ex parte order had not lapsed yet (it was due to lapse only on 23 December 1998, which was 14 days after it was granted). So that, assuming that the order was served on the defendant on 14 December 1998, the defendant had 14 days from the date of service to comply with the mandatory order to disclose its assets and accounts. On the date when the order was served on the defendant,