JUDGMENT

Abdul Malik Ishak J:

Brief Background

The writ of summons with the statement of claim in enclosure one (1) cited only the first defendant as the sole defendant. By way of encl. 4, the plaintiff sought to apply, on an ex partebasis, against the first defendant for the following orders:

a)the first Defendant be ordered to comply with the terms as stated in the agreement between the Plaintiff and the first Defendant dated 22/12/1999 ("the said agreement"), inter alia, but not restricted to,

(i)the first Defendant continues to offer and maintain the courses thereat so as to enable the students from the People's Republic of China to complete the courses at the first Defendant's premises and graduate upon completion; and

(ii)the first Defendant shall ensure that there be provided proper academic support by the relevant faculty and academic staff and departments concerned and also adequate facilities for the students from the People's Republic of China, which include intensive seminars, synchronous or asynchronous tutorials, assignments marking, setting of examinations and marking of papers, invigilation or proctoring of examinations and examination rooms;

(b)the first Defendant be ordered to admit and register 7 students from the People's Republic of China for the March/April 2001 session whose arrival date was fixed on 14/5/2001 and the following is a list of the names of the students concerned ("group one of the China students") who was given offer letters by the first Defendant to further their studies with the first Defendant:

(i)Shi Xueping (f);

(ii)Li Juan (f);

(iii)Huang Pei (f);

(iv)Ge Min (f);

(v)Gu Ying (f);

(vi)Wang Zhi (f); and

(vii)Liu Zhenyi.

(c)the first Defendant is to be further ordered to admit and register the students from the People's Republic of China for the June and September 2001 session ('group two of the China students') pursuant to the terms of the said agreement;

(d)the first Defendant is to be ordered to make an application for visas and any other approvals required for the China students concerned immediately for the purposes of complying with the date of arrival that has been fixed on 14/5/2001 and/or at any earliest date possible or as soon as possible if it exceeded the date on 14/5/2001;

(e)the first Defendant is further to be ordered to make an application for visas and any approvals that are required for the group two of the China students concerned immediately for the purposes of complying with the arrival date that has been scheduled;

(f)the first Defendant is ordered to issue invoices concerned for the first year of the course as stated in Schedule "A" of the said agreement ACCA-China, Student's Schedule of Payment, that ought to be paid on 12/4/2001, to the parents of the first group of the China students who are now studying with the first Defendant after being admitted on October/November 2000;

(g)costs in the cause; and

(h)any further order or relief that is deemed fit by this Honourable Court.

And the reasons for the application in encl. 4 were said to be:

a)the first Defendant had breached the agreement dated 22/12/1999 between the Plaintiff and the first Defendant and the first Defendant had failed and refused to get the approvals for visas and the approvals required by the China students to further their studies in Malaysia;

b)the actions of the first Defendant in refusing to enrol the China students have caused bad publicity to Malaysia and is against the policy of Malaysia to encourage international students to further their studies in Malaysia; and

c)the China students concerned suffer hardship as they have resigned from their jobs and are not able to further their studies in Malaysia now and the balance of convenience lies in favour of the first Defendant who have the capacity to enrol the China students to enable them to further their studies here in Malaysia.

I have purposely described the first defendant as the sole defendant and there was a reason for this. When encl.