JUDGMENT

Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

Introduction

This appeal arises from the decision of the High Court finding the appellant guilty of contempt for the breach of an injunction and sentencing him to one month's imprisonment. On 31 January 1997 this Court granted the appellant bail pending appeal in the sum of RM200,000 in two sureties and ordered him to surrender his international and restricted passports. Since this matter involved the liberty of a citizen, we directed an early hearing of the appeal.

Facts and Background

The appellant is a member of the legal profession. So are the respondents. All of them were at one point in time members of the Judicial and Legal Service. They resigned and had themselves admitted to the Bar. They came together and formed a firm in which they practised as advocates and solicitors. Initially they enjoyed an amicable relationship. Later it turned sour. In the end they decided to part company. The appellant left the firm. The respondents decided to stay on together and practise law. The separation of these former friends was bitter and acrimonious. They hurled allegations against each other. It culminated in a suit being filed by the respondents against the appellant. One of the complaints made by the respondents was that the appellant continued to interfere with the affairs of the new firm. The respondents therefore applied for an injunction. The application was made by a summons taken out on 4 August 1995. It was made returnable inter partes on 1 September 1995. The relief sought included an order seeking to restrain the appellant acting in a manner detrimental to the partnership.

When the respondents' summons came on for hearing before the learned Judge on 1 September 1995, he indicated that the interests of the parties would be best served by an early trial of the action. This the learned Judge was well entitled to do. The summons was accordingly adjourned pending the disposal of the suit.

Matters must, however, have come to a head because in early December 1995 the respondents took steps to restore their summons for urgent hearing. On 1 December 1995 the Court issued notice to both parties to appear on the summons the very next day. On 2 December, when the summons came on for hearing, Counsel for the respondents was present. However, neither the appellant nor his Counsel appeared. The reason for their absence is a matter which we will advert to when we come to deal with the arguments advanced by the appellant before us. Suffice to say that it was in these circumstances that the learned Judge made an order in terms of the respondents' summons.

On 11 January 1996 the parties entered into a consent order which contains the following terms:

1) The defendant's partnership with the plaintiffs ceased as of 31 July 1995 and the firm shall be continued by the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs as of that date.

2) The defendant's name shall be removed from the firm's name of Yusuf Lee Pathma & Marbeck within 3 months from the date of this Order.

3) That Bala Subramaniam s/o Karrupiah of S.M. Loh & Bala, Certified Public Accountants be hereby appointed the accountant to enquire, inspect and determine the assets, liabilities, dealings, transactions and the value of all files as at 31 July 1995 and thereafter ascertain the defendant's and plaintiffs' entitlement in respect thereof and for such purposes:

(a) the defendant shall hand to the firm through the accountant within 14 days from the date hereof all the properties and assets of the firm including a list of files in his custody.

(b) the plaintiffs shall enable the accountant access to all the files and documents that are now in their custody.

(c) the accountant shall complete the accounts within six months from the date of this Order.

4) That upon ascertainment of their respective entitlement each party shall settle the amounts due to the other as the case may be within three (3) months from the delivery of the accounts to all the parties subject always to