[1] This is the judgment of the court.

[2] This is an application by Madam Thien Kon Thai (‘Mdm Thien’) who seeks leave to intervene by notice of motion dated 10 October 2007 in the appeal before us namely, Civil Appeal No S-02-447 of 2007.

[3] The brief facts which form the background to this application may be stated as follows. An action was brought in the court below by the instant respondent to recover certain lands from the appellant. At the outset of the trial, counsel for the respondent (the plaintiff in the court below) very properly applied to have Mdm Thien joined as a defendant. However, after taking into account the learned trial judge’s observations, counsel did not pursue his application. The trial then proceeded. The plaintiff closed his case. The defendant then opened his case and called a number of witnesses. Mdm Thien was one of them. She was called as his eighth witness. In the course of her cross-examination Mr Baldev Singh quite correctly put to her that she was a party to the fraud that had been allegedly perpetrated by the defendant. Mdm Thien of course denied this. The matter rested there. At the conclusion of the trial the learned judge made certain damning findings against the [*282] defendant. These are now under challenge in the appeal and for that reason we will say no more about them. The learned judge then went on to make certain orders in the plaintiff’s favour including an order setting aside the transfer of the lands to Mdm Thien. We must pause here to mention the facts which are of immediate relevance. Firstly, that the lands in question had been transferred to Mdm Thien (in circumstances that were attacked in the court below). Secondly, that the defendant had on the first day of the trial also moved an amendment to his pleadings to allege that the lands had by then been transferred and registered in Mdm Thien’s name.

[4] Mr Roland Cheng of counsel for Mdm Thien has strenuously argued that the far reaching orders made by the learned judge had adversely affected his client in a material aspect without she having been given an opportunity of being heard. She was the registered proprietor of the lands at the material time. That is the date when the orders were made. Her land was being taken away without her having been given an opportunity to provide an answer. All these, counsel submits, is a flagrant breach of the rules of natural justice.

[5] We accept that it is a general rule that no order may be made against a non party. However there are two exceptions to this rule. The first are injunctions. An injunction is not only binding upon the person to whom it is directed. It also binds his agents or servants although they are not parties to the suit. It binds every person who has notice of it. The second exception is where the party complaining of being excluded is really the alter ego of the person already impleaded and before the court. Jones v Lipman (1962) 1 Ch D 442 provides an excellent example. There a defendant who had agreed to sell his land to the plaintiff transferred it to a company of which he and a clerk of his solicitors were sole shareholders and directors. Russell J (later Lord Russell of Killowen) had no hesitation in decreeing specific performance against the limited company. He described the company as a sham or a cloak.

[6] Now Mr Roland Cheng quite correctly conceded that for the purpose of his application the findings by the learned judge must be accepted as binding upon his client. Now, if you look at the judgment of the learned judge you will be left with no doubt that he found Mdm Thien to be, to employ his words, ‘a tool’ of the defendant’s fraud. To our minds this is merely another way of describing Mdm Thien as the defendant’s alter ego. So if one were to speak of prejudice when viewing the facts from this perspective there is really none. For Mdm Thien is not adversely affected in any material asp