JUDGMENT

Zakaria Yatim J:

There were two applications made before me in Chambers arising from a Mareva injunction ordered against the defendants and third parties. The first application (encl. 10) was filed by the second defendant and it was argued before me in Chambers on 27 August, 1 & 2 September 1983. Subsequently, further arguments were heard in Open Court on 16 and 24 September 1983 under O. 56 r. 2(2) of the Rules of the High Court, 1980. The second application was filed by strangers to the proceedings, who called themselves, "Circus Entertainment Management Ltd." (hereinafter referred to as the "Interveners"). This application (encl. 16) was argued before me in Chambers on 9, 12 and 14 September 1983. Further arguments were heard in Open Court at the same time as the hearing of the first application.

On 11 August 1983, on an ex-parte application by the plaintiffs, Dzaiddin J ordered a Mareva injunction (encl. 28) restraining the defendants, from removing from the jurisdiction of the Court, Pleding, giving them by way of security or otherwise disposing or in any way dealing with any of the asset or assets in which they or any of them are beneficially interested insofar as the same do not exceed the sum of RM876,337.92.

Prior to the ex-parte application made on 11 August 1983, the plaintiffs, a private limited company incorporated in Singapore, had filed a writ (encl. 1) against the defendants in the High Court in Kuala Lumpur (Commercial Division) claiming damages in the sum of RM876,337.92 for breach of contract.

On 26 August 1983, at the instance of the plaintiffs, Dzaiddin J made a further order (encl. 27) that Nutritional Products Sdn. Bhd. (hereinafter referred to as "Nupro") and/or Majlis Sukan Negara, Malaysia be restrained from paying any monies from the income earned from the staging of the Circus known as the Gerry cottle Circus in Malaysia insofar as the same do not exceed the sum of RM876,337.92 to any person save the Government of Malaysia for entertainment taxes and to themselves for any monies that may be due to them or either of them by way of commission or as their share of the income form the staging of the circus in Malaysia.

In the first application the second defendant sought for the following orders:

(1) That the plaintiffs' writ of summons and statement of claim be dismissed on the ground that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the second defendant;

(2) That the order made on 11 August 1983 be dissolved;

(3) That the plaintiffs do provide suitable security for the due performance of the order of the Court in lieu of their undertaking to the Court dated 11 August 1983; and

(4) That the plaintiffs do provide security for costs in the sum of RM25,000.

In the second application the Interveners asked for an order that:

(a) the applicants be given leave to intervene in the proceedings; and

(b) that the order made on 26 August 1983 against the second defendant be set aside or varied.

I shall deal with the prayers in the two applications in order of their sequence as set out above.

In prayer (1) of the first application, the second defendant was asking that the plaintiffs' writ and statement of claim be dismissed on the ground that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the second defendant. This application was made pursuant to the provisions of O. 18 r. 19 of the Rules of High Court, 1980.

The plaintiffs' claim is based on an agreement concluded between the plaintiffs and the defendants on or about 21 April 1982. Under this agreement the defendants appointed the plaintiffs as their sole exclusive promoter to manage the presentation, co-ordination and management of the Gerry Cottle Circus in Singapore and Malaysia. The plaintiffs' appointment was subject to the terms and conditions contained in the agreement. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants, in breach of the said agreement, had staged the Circus at Subang Jaya Malaysia with Nupro and Majlis Sukan Negara, Malaysia as the promoters