KAMALANATHAN RATNAM J:

facts

The plaintiffs have brought this action by way of an originating summons (‘OS’) (encl 1) alleging that the defendants have failed and/or refused to return, inter alia, all files, documents, accounts and vehicles belonging to the first and second plaintiffs based on the causes of action of conversion and detinue and praying for delivery-up of the same and for damages to be assessed on account of the alleged failure and/or refusal to deliver-up.

On 15 June 1998, the plaintiffs by way of this application (encl 4) obtained an interlocutory mandatory injunction on an ex parte basis which had essentially given them the full reliefs they seek in so far as delivery-up was concerned.

On 31 March 1999, upon the defendants’ application (encl 25), I set aside the ex parte mandatory injunction obtained by the plaintiffs (encl 15) on the grounds of non-disclosure of material facts and lack of clean hands and made certain other consequential orders. I do not intend to repeat the facts leading to this case as I have already done so in my written judgment given on 31 March 1999.

the application

This is the plaintiffs’ application for an interlocutory mandatory injunction (enc