Haidar Mohd Noor FCJ:

The issue before this court is in relation to a contempt of court not for breach of a particular order of court but for conduct of interfering with the due administration of justice or the course of justice by disposing the subject matter of a pending proceeding for mareva injunction.

The learned judge found on the facts that no contempt of court was committed and hence dismissed the application. The Court of Appeal found otherwise on the facts and ruled there was contempt of court and set aside the order of the learned judge. It remitted the case to the High Court for sentence. At first blush it would appear to be essentially a question of facts in which leave should not have been granted in this appeal as s. 96(a) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, has not been satisfied. That in fact was the stand taken by counsel for Jasa Keramat Sdn. Bhd. in opposing the leave application of Monatech (M) Sdn. Bhd. to this court.

We will first consider whether that is the correct position.

In this judgment we will refer the parties according to their positions in the High Court, that is, the appellant as 'the defendant' and the respondent as 'the plaintiff' and