1. Enclosure 134 is a Motion filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to Order 52 Rules of the High 1980 (RHC 1980) following leave being granted on 25.1.2008. This Motion seeks an order of committal against the 1^st and 7^th Defendants and one Siau Suen Miin [prospective contemnors] by reason of these persons having:-

a. committed contempt of Court on or about 19.12.2005; or

b. intentionally or effectively interfered with the administration of justice by issuing a letter dated 19.12.2005 to one Yeong Sin Pui (Yeong) with the intention of intimidating this witness.

2. As required by Order 52 rule 2(2) RHC 1980 a Statement setting out the name and description of the applicant and the person sought to be committed as well as the grounds upon which the motion is sought together with an affidavit verifying the facts relied on were filed - Encls 134B & 134A respectively. The 1^st Defendant filed an Afidavit Jawapan on behalf of herself and the 7^th Defendant (Encl 137) while Siau Suen Miin (Siau) filed another (Encl 138) . The Plaintiff and Siau then filed several affidavits in response to each other's affidavits (Ends 139, 140, 141, 142, 144 & 146) . All the affidavits of the Plaintiff were affirmed by its Managing Director, Tan Phuan Lam. In her submissions learned counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant took the position that this Motion was necessary and of utmost importance to the protection of witnesses generally including Yeong. Otherwise the 'streams of justice' would be polluted by such conduct. It is imperative that the relevant background facts be viewed chronologically in order that this Motion may be properly considered.

Background Facts

3. On 31.5.2005 the Plaintiff sued the 17 Defendants some of whom were its ex-employees for loss and damage occasioned by reason of alleged fraud and/or breaches of trust, fiduciary duties and/or terms of contract. On 4.10.2005 the Plaintiff applied for an ex parte mareva injunction against the 1^st, 2^nd, 14^th and 17^th Defendants. This application was then ordered to be heard inter paries. On 14.11.2005, Siau appeared together with another as counsel for the 1^st, 14^th and 17^th Defendants. The hearing was however adjourned to 27.2.2006.

4. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed another affidavit, affirmed by Yeong on 28.11.2005. In this affidavit Yeong inter alia deposed the contents of a telephone conversation between the 1^st and the 7^th Defendants that he purportedly overheard on the morning of 4.6.2003. A copy of the affidavit was served on the solicitors acting for all the Defendants except the 9^th Defendant. Yeong's affidavit can be seen at exhibit "TPL-2" in Encl 134A . Paragraph 6 in his affidavit subsequently became the basis of much action and it states:-

"6. Pada pagi 4.6.2003 saya mendapat tahu daripada rakan-rakan sekerja saya bahawa terdapat kekecohan di dalam syarikat Plaintif di mana Encik Phillip Tan iaitu Pengarah Urusan baru Plaintif telah tidak dibenarkan memasuki pejabat Plaintif oleh Defendan Ke-3 dan Ke-4. Saya masih ingat apa yang berlaku pada hari tersebut. Pada hari tersebut lebih kurang pukul 10.30 pagi saya terdengar Defendan Ke-7 bercakap dengan Defendan Pertama melalui talipon. Pada masa itu saya berada di tepi Defendan Ke-7. Di dalam percakapan talipon tersebut, Defendan Ke-7 menanyakan Defendan Pertama mengenai 1,400 unit Intel Pentium CPU yang dia suruh untuk keluarkan dari stor Plaintif. Saya terdengar Defendan Pertama memberitahu Defendan Ke-7 di dalam bahasa Kantonis "Jangan hirau. Ada dokumen pesanan keluarkan stok". Selepas itu Defendan Ke-7 selesai bercakap dengan Defendan Pertama, Defendan Ke-7 komen pada saya dalam bahasa Kantonis "Mudah sahaja bagi Miss Lam cakap. Saya yang keluarkan stok. Apa-apa yang berlaku saya yang tanggung beban."

5. On 19.12.2005, acting on the instructions of Liang Mon Loi and Lam Yen Ling (7^th and 1^st Defendants) Siau issued a notice to Yeong demanding an apology for alleged defamatory/libelous statement made in his affidavit agains