JUDGMENT

Augustine Paul FCJ:

[1] Metramac Corporation Sdn Bhd ("the applicant") is the defendant in an action initiated against them by Fawziah Holdings Sdn Bhd ("the respondent")vide Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No: D5-22-110-1995. The respondent's claim is for, inter alia, alleged loss of advertising rights and loss of income earned by the applicant from future contracts performed by the applicant. The applicant filed a counter-claim seeking, inter alia, various orders to declare null and void the agreements upon which the respondent's claim was premised. On 21 October 2003 the High Court found the applicant liable to the respondent for the loss of advertising rights. However damages were to be assessed by taking into consideration the advertising rights that may possibly exist under the replacement Concession Agreement. All other claims of the applicant were dismissed. The respondent's claim for loss of future contracts was also dismissed as being void for uncertainty.

[2] Both the parties appealed to the Court of Appeal. The applicant's appeal was registered as Civil Appeal No: W-02-1013-2003 and the respondent's appeal as Civil Appeal No: W-02-1009-2003. The appeals were heard together on 30 August 2005 by a panel consisting of Gopal Sri Ram JCA, Hashim Yusoff JCA and Zulkefli Makinudin JCA. Judgment was reserved to a date to be fixed.

[3] In the meanwhile the respondent had filed a motion in the Court of Appeal seeking, inter alia, the following orders pursuant to s. 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 ("s. 44(1)"):

(a) an order that the respondent and/or its directors, servants and/or agents or whosoever otherwise be restrained from disposing, conveying and/or dealing with the assets of the respondent in any manner that would frustrate, prejudice and/or defeat the appellant's claim against the respondent;

(b) alternatively, an order that the respondent set aside a sum of RM165 million in a joint account of the appellant and the respondent to satisfy the judgment that may be obtained in the appeal.

The motion was heard on 25 October 2005 before Gopal Sri Ram JCA, James Foong JCA and Zulkefli Makinudin JCA who granted the following orders:

(a) that the respondent be and are hereby restrained whether by their servants or agents or howsoever otherwise from disposing of or dissipating any of their assets within the jurisdiction, including monies which they may receive hereafter up to a limit of RM100 million until further order;

(b) that costs herein is to follow the event of the appeal;

(c) that the penal notice under Form 87(c) of the Rules of the High Court 1980 be endorsed unto this order.

The applicant, being dissatisfied, filed a motion for leave to appeal to the Federal Court against the orders on 21 November 2005. It was originally fixed for hearing on 22 February 2006 and was adjourned to 6 March 2006 to enable the respondent to file an affidavit in reply.

[4] The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on the substantive appeal on 12 January 2006 allowing the respondent's appeal in Civil Appeal No: W-02-1009-2003 and dismissing the applicant's appeal in W-02-1013-2003. The applicant filed two motions. One was in the Federal Court for leave to appeal against both the orders and the other was in the Court of Appeal for a stay of execution of the orders made on 17 January 2006. The respondent then filed a motion to, inter alia, increase the sum upon which the injunction applied to RM200 million. The respondent also applied for particulars and the appointment of an external monitoring accountant. The application was heard by the Court of Appeal on 23 February 2006. On 1 March 2006 the court granted a conditional stay on the following terms:

(a) Stay of execution and enforcement of the order and judgment dated 12 January 2006 made in the Court of Appeal pursuant to Civil Appeal No: W-02-1009-2003 is hereby granted pending the disposal of the applicant/respondent's application for leave to appeal to the Feder