JUDGMENT

Mohd Radzi Abdul Hamid JCA:

Introduction

[1] When a respondent is ordered to do an act under a mandatory injunction by a certain time and there is non-compliance of that order leading to a committal proceedings in which the respondent was fined, can the plaintiff then apply pursuant to O 45 r 6 of the Rules of 2012 to set a new time for the respondent to comply with that mandatory injunction and does the Court have the power under that provision to set a new time for compliance when the respondent has already been found guilty and fined. If the Court does not have the power to do so under O 45 r 6, can the Court still set a new time for compliance under its inherent power?

[2] Those were the main issues that were presented for decision by this Court . After hearing arguments of parties, this Court found in the negative to the first and second questions and in the affirmative to the third question. This Grounds of Judgment set out this Court 's decision.

[3] The parties will be referred to as they were at the High Court .

Background Facts

[4] The background facts are that the Plaintiff and the 1st and 2nd Defendants had entered into a settlement agreement to resolve certain disputes between them. All parties are related being family members. Under the Settlement Agreement dated 2 February 2020, the 1st and 2nd Defendants undertook to pay to the Plaintiff an amount of RM5,500,000.00 from the proceeds of the sale of a piece of property owned by the 3rd Defendant. The Defendants sold that property for RM8,000,000.00 but failed to pay the Plaintiff what was promised and that led to a claim filed by the Plaintiff in the Shah Alam High Court vide action No BA-22NCC-544-12/2020 for the recovery of that sum.

[5] To secure the Plaintiff's interest in the litigation, the Plaintiff then applied for a mandatory injunction against the 1st and 2nd Defendants requiring them to pay a sum of RM5,500,000.00 into a fixed deposit account of the Defendants' solicitor's Client's Account of M/s Ram Mo Associates as stakeholders until the disposal of the suit. The High Court granted the Injunction Order against all the Defendants on 21 June 2021 ("Injunction Order"). Pursuant to that Injunction Order, the Defendants were to deposit those monies either jointly or severally, by or before 28 June 2021 ("Initial Date").

[6] The Injunction Order did not provide that in the event of non-compliance on the Initial Date, the Plaintiff may apply for or the Court may fix any additional date for performance of the Injunction Order by the Defendants.

[7] The Defendants had appealed to the Court of Appeal against the High Court 's decision to grant the Injunction Order. That appeal was not successful.

[8] The Defendants failed to comply with that Injunction Order on grounds of impecuniosity and a committal proceeding was taken by the Plaintiff against the 1st and 2nd Defendants for breach of the Injunction Order. On 21 March 2023, the High Court found against the Defendants and they were fined in the amount of RM200,000.00. That fine was paid.

[9] The matter did not end there. The Plaintiff then applied under encl 210 to the High Court for a new date to be fixed for the Defendants to comply with the Injunction Order ("Application'). That Application was granted on 25 October 2023 ("Consequential Order") and a new date of 25 November 2023 was fixed for performance of the Injunction Order ("New Date"). Thus, on or before that New Date, the Defendants must, jointly or severally, deposit the monies as per the Injunction Order.

[10] The Defendants are dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court in granting the Consequential Order and in fixing the New Date. In the Defendants' view, since they had paid the fine under the committal proceedings and in the absence of any express provision in the Injunction Order giving the Plaintiff or the Court the liberty to fix any additional dates for compliance after the event of breach, then such an Order