JUDGMENT

Mohamed Dzaiddin J:

[1] This is the defendants' application, made ex parte, to set aside the ex parte injunction which I granted to the plaintiff on 3 December 1990.

[2] The preliminary issue to be decided today is whether, in the exercise of my discretion, I should entertain this ex parte summons-in-chambers. Yesterday, I heard full submissions of counsel with respect to this ex parte application. Encik Balasundaram, for the defendants, submitted that due to the urgency of the matter, as explained by the third defendant in his supporting affidavit (lampiran 9), this court can hear the defendants' application ex parte. Counsel relied on my decision in ; [1988] 1 MLJ 42; [1988] 2 CLJ 441 and the Singapore High court decision in ; [1990] 1 MLJ 141 for the proposition that an interim injunction can be dissolved ex parte. Be it noted that in both cases we followed the decision of Megarry J in London City Agency (JCD) Ltd & Anor v. Lee & Ors [1970] Ch 597.

[3] The facts of the present application are these. On the morning of 6 December 1990, the defendants' solicitors, Messrs Balasundaram & Co, filed in the registry an ex parte summons-in-chambers together with an affidavit,