{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f65\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f66\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f68\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f69\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f70\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f71\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f72\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f73\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255; \red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0; \red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\* \ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\trcbpat1\trcfpat1\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\s15\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 Style 1;}{\s16\qj \fi576\li0\ri0\sa72\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 Style 2;}} {\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid22664\rsid1138285\rsid2321372\rsid2564628\rsid3093764\rsid3365194\rsid3885718\rsid5855042\rsid6363835\rsid6365977\rsid6688468\rsid6774409\rsid7628480\rsid8092766\rsid8327558\rsid8353365 \rsid8656307\rsid11558408\rsid12912780\rsid13241663\rsid14644022\rsid15270686\rsid16267282}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\author maltungtung_l}{\operator Teniau_D}{\creatim\yr2009\mo10\dy19\hr10\min56}{\revtim\yr2010\mo2\dy11\hr14\min26} {\version15}{\edmins254}{\nofpages3}{\nofwords1635}{\nofchars9323}{\*\company scims}{\nofcharsws10937}{\vern24689}}\paperw11907\paperh16840\margl0\margr0\margt0\margb0 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\subfontbysize\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3 \jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot6365977 \fet0\sectd \psz9\linex0\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid13241663\sftnbj {\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2 \pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qr \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13241663 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3885718\charrsid12912780 [2000] 1 FLR 88}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3885718 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2564628 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2564628\charrsid12912780 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3885718 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13241663 IN THE }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3885718 COURT OF APPEAL OF FIJI \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6365977 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3885718\charrsid13241663 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3885718 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6688468 MOHAMMED YASIN}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3885718 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3885718 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3885718\charrsid13241663 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3885718 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13241663 v}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3885718 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3885718 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3885718\charrsid13241663 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3885718 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6688468 BASIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6365977 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6688468 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3885718 Court of Appeal}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8353365 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 Civil Appellate Jurisdiction }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6688468 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 Reddy, P \par 16 May, 2000 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6688468 AB}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 U00}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3885718 21}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8353365 /}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6688468 2000 (on appeal from HBC237}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8353365 /}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6688468 1996S}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 ) \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15270686 \par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid15270686 Leave to appeal against interlocutory order of High Court to pay into court or face possible committal for failure to do so - stay pending hearing of appeal - whether applicant committed \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15270686 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 The trial judge ordered that the applicant pay into court a $349,413.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15270686 20}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 fund held in the trust account of his solicitors, Messrs Maharaj Chandra & Associates in December, 1996 pen}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15270686 ding he aring and determination o}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 f the action. The respondent failed in two procedural attempts to commit the applicant. In 2000, upon review towards setting the matter down for hearing, the trial judge found the 1996 order was still extant and not complied with. He made on order for compliance and granted leave for a further action of }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14644022\charrsid6365977 committal}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 to be sought. The defendant solicitors paid the funds into Court but appealed. On application for leave to appeal, the court found that previous contempt proceedings failed because the respondent had not complied with procedural requirements, not because of merit. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15270686 \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid15270686 Held}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 - (1) The legislature has evinced a policy a}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3885718 gainst leave to bring interlocu}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 tory appeals except where the Court, acting judicially, finds reason to grant leave. It is designed to reduce appeals from interlocutory Orders as much as possible. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3885718 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 (2) No prejudice will be done to the Applicant if leave is refused. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3885718 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 (3) No committal proc eedings were instituted against the Applicant. The Judge merely indicated that further action, possibly including committal, may be taken if the Applicant did not comply with the Order. That did not mean that a committal Order was held over the Applicant' s head to secure such payment. Non-compliance with Court Orders must attract some retribution, committal being one. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3885718 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 (4) The breach of a Court Order was so flagrant, deliberate, and of such long standing that to ignore it would invite deri}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15270686 sion and disrepute to the admin}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 istration of justice. Waiver in such cases is not decisive. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15270686 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 Leave to appeal dismissed and stay refused. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15270686 \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid15270686 No Cases referred to in Decision \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15270686 \par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid7628480 Graham E. Leung}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15270686\charrsid7628480 }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14644022\charrsid7628480 for the plaintiff}{ \i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15270686\charrsid7628480 \par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid7628480 Sakimi Samuels for the defendants \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15270686 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 16 May, 2000}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3885718 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13241663 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3885718 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid15270686 DECISION}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6365977 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15270686 \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid15270686 Reddy, P \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15270686 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 This is an application by the Applicant (Original Defendant) for leave to appeal to this Court against an Order made by the High Court (Scott J.) on 6}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15270686 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 April 2000 ordering him to pay into Court a sum of $349,413.20 by midday on 7 April or to face possible c}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14644022 ommittal for failure to do so (April 2000 Order}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 )}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14644022 .}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 \par \par The Applicant also asks that the April 2000 Order be stayed pending the hearing and final determination of his appeal to this Court. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15270686 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 It is essential to set out briefly the circumstances leading up to the making of April 2000 Order and to this present applic}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1138285 ation before dealing with them. \par \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 The writ in this case was issued on 12 June 1996. In that writ the Respondent (Original Plaintiff) claims from the Applicant a sum of $349,413.20 which the Applicant says it lent to the defendant on or about 7 September 1995 by paying the sum into the Trust Account of Messrs. Maharaj Chandra & Associates, Solicitors of Suva. \par \par In his defence the Applicant does not deny the payment alleged but says that such payment is not refundable for various reasons not material for present purposes. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15270686 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 On 19 August 1996 the Respondent applied to the High Court for an Order that the sum of $349,413.20 paid into the Trust Account of Messrs. Maharaj Chandra & Associates be paid into Court because it feared that the funds would otherwise be dissipated. \par \par The application came before Scott J. on 4 December 1996. That application was opposed by the Applicant and after hearing Counsel and considering the affidavit evidence before him the Learned Judge ordered that the said sum be paid into Court by the Applicant "forthwith", because he concluded that otherwise there "was a real risk of dissipation of the sum." (December 1996 Order.) \par \par On 9 December 1996 the Applicant applied to the High Court for leave to appeal to this Cou}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3885718 rt from the December 1996 Order.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15270686 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 He also a pplied to "stay" the December 1996 Order pending the hearing and determination of his appeal to this Court. Both applications came before Scott J. and he dismissed both on 6 February 1997. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15270686 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 It is common ground that no application for leave to appeal from t he December 1996 Order was made to this Court. Nor was the Order of the Court complied with. The December 1996 Order remained a subsisting Order of the High Court at all relevant times. \par \par Between May and October 1997 the Respondent made two attempts to have the Applicant committed for contempt for}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15270686 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 not complying with the December 1996 Order. The committal proceedings were dismissed by Scott J. on 1 October 1997 because of the Respondent's inability "to properly handle" the application to commit. It is obvious that the application }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid22664 failed for procedural deficiencies}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 and not on merit. It seems that matters rested there until July 1999 when Scott J. while reviewing progress made in bringing the case to a hearing raised the question of the continuing non-obedience by the Applicant of the }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2321372 December 1996 Order}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1138285 ,}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2321372 and his r}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 ight to take further part in the proceedings. He called for written submissions from Counsel for both parties on the course of action open to him, considered the authorities cited to him, and at the end of a reasoned decision ca}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2321372 me to the following conclusion}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11558408 :}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2321372 -}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3885718 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2321372 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid2321372 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 "In view of the stage which this litigation has reached I do not think that merely refusing to hear the Defendant until he has purged himself of his contempt will advance the matter. However I am not prepared merely to watch an Order of the High Court being flouted and take the view that the Defendant's disobedience is indeed impeding the course of justice. In the circumstances I propose therefore to give the Defendant a final oppo}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6774409 rtunity to comply with my Order.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 He will have until midday 7 April 00 to pay the full sum into Court. I will hear Counsel again at 9.30 on Monday 10 April and will then decide what further action, possibly including committal, if any, is warranted." \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6365977 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2321372 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 It is from that Order that the Applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the full Court. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2321372 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 I should also mention that on 10 April 2000 Scott J. refused the Applicant leave to appeal to this Court and he also refused to "stay" the April 2000 Order. Hence the application to a single Judge of this Court. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2321372 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 The April 2000 Order is an interlocutory Order. The subject matter of the Order, namely the sum of $349,413.20 and costs (altogether $349,763.20) has now been paid int}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2321372 o Court by the Applicant (on 12/4/}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 2000). \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3365194 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 The monies will now be he ld in Court until the final resolution of the dispute between the Applicant and the Respondent by the High Court (subject to appeals if any). The Courts do not, as a general rule encourage appeals from interlocutory Orders. The requirement for leave to ap p eal from interlocutory Orders is designed to reduce appeals from interlocutory Orders as much as possible. The legislature by requiring leave of the Court in order to appeal from interlocutory Orders has evinced a policy against bringing of interlocutory appeals except where the Court, acting judicially, finds reason to grant leave. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3365194 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 I am not sitting on appeal from the judgment of Scott J., nor is it my }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6774409 function to review his decision.}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3365194 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 I have looked at the submissions made by the Applicant and his proposed grounds of appeal to determine if they raise arguable issues affecting his substantive rights which require further ventilation before the full Court. I am of the opinion that they do not and no prejudice will be done to the Applicant if I refused the Ap plicant leave. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3365194 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 In this case, as I see it, the Learned Judge took a robust common sense approach to his December 1996 Order, As he pointed out the breach of the Court Order was so flagrant, deliberate, and of such long standing that to ignore}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3365194 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 it would invite derision and disrepute to the administration of justice and pointed out that waiver in such cases is not decisive. \par \par Mr Samuels, Counsel for the Applicant, in his proposed Petition of Appeal attacks the April 2000 Order mainly on the}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3365194 ground that the Respondent had }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 by his conduct waived compliance with the December 1996 Order, and that it was}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3885718 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 not for the Learned Judge to intervene in the matter, by insisting that the Order be complied with. The alleged waiver is said to arise because of the two unsuccessful attempts that the Respondent made in 1997 to have the Applicant committed under Order 52 of the High Court Rules, for non-compliance with the December 1996 Order. In support of this argument, Mr Samuels points out that on the 23 of November 1999 Mr G. Le ung Counsel for the Respondent told the Learned Judge that "he was inclined to agree" with the Applicant's contention that the Respondent had waived the failure to obey the December 1996 Order and that it was not for the Court to intervene in the matter. \par \par W ith respect to Counsel, this particular ground is misconceived and in my view has little prospect of success. I do not see how the two aborted attempts to have the Applicant committed can be said to constitute waiver. The contempt proceedings failed not b e cause the Applicant was not in contempt, but because the Respondent had not complied with the procedural requirements of Order 52 of the High Court Rules. Furthermore, whatever may have been Mr Leung's disposition on the 23 November 1999, the fact of the matter is that on the 6 of April Counsel for the Respondent insisted upon compliance with the December 1996 Order. \par \par It is pertinent to point out here that it was suggested in argument before me that the liberty of the Applicant had been threatened by the April 2000 Order, and that proper procedures were not invoked to have the Applicant committed}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3885718 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 for not complying with the April 2000 Order.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 Indeed much of the written submissions before me were premised upon the assumption that the Applicant was committed for not complying with the Order. This is clearly incorrect and, I see little merit in this argument. It is obvious th at no committal proceedings were instituted against the Applicant. The Learned Judge merely indicated that if the Order was not complied with then he may have to - in his words "decide what further action, possibly including committal, if any is warranted ". }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid16267282 (Emphasis added.)}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3365194 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 No doubt the Applicant paid the money into Court because he feared that he might be committed, if he did not, but that does not mean that a committal Order was held over his head to secure such payment. Non-compliance with}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3885718 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 Court Orders must, in the order of things attract some retribution, committal being one. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3365194 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 In the circumstances the application for leave to appeal is dismissed. Consequently the application for stay is also refused. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3365194 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid6365977 The costs of this application shall be costs in the cause. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3365194 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2564628 {\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3885718\charrsid3885718 Appeal dismissed.}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3365194 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13241663 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13241663\charrsid2564628 \par }\pard \qr \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2564628 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6365977\charrsid2564628 Marie Chan \par }}