[2021] 2 MLRA Peguam Negara Malaysia v. MKINI Dotcom Sdn Bhd & Anor 445 of the respondents to apply for striking out of the AG’s ex parte application. Secondly, to inform the court of representation made on behalf of the respondents to the AG, seeking for a withdrawal of this contempt application. [6] Upon hearing the leave application, this court, being satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out, granted the AG leave to commence committal proceedings against the respondents, pursuant to O 52 r 3(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC). The AG then, on 18 June 2020 proceeded with the substantive application in encl 19 for committal orders against the respondents. The Setting Aside Application [7] The respondents in encl 22 applied to set aside the application of the AG. Enclosure 22 was supported by an affidavit deposed by the 2nd respondent (encl 23) citing the grounds that the AG’s application failed to disclose a prima facie case as well as procedural non-compliance. We heard encls 19 and 22 together on 2 July 2020 and dismissed encl 22. [8] In dismissing encl 22, we held that a prima facie case had been made out. And by virtue of s 114A of the Evidence Act 1950, the respondents were deemed to have published the impugned comments. [9] On procedural non-compliance, it was first alleged by the respondents that the AG failed to adhere to the requirement of O 52 r 2B of the ROC in making a direct application without first giving a formal notice to show cause. Such a failure, it was submitted, rendered the application by the AG a nullity. On the facts of this case, however we held that the failure to show cause as required by O 52 r 2B of the ROC was not fatal or prejudicial. [10] In this regard, we have considered the two decisions of the Court of Appeal in Uthayakumar Ponnusamy v. Abdul Wahab Abdul Kassim & Ors [2020] 2 MLRA 472 and Tan Boon Thien & Anor v. Tan Poh Lee & Ors (Encl 81) [2019] MLRAU 446 cited by the respondents to substantiate their case. [11] In Uthayakumar (supra) the Court of Appeal was merely articulating the procedure laid down in O 52 r 2B of the ROC. While in Tan Boon Thien (supra) the contemnor complained of the non-compliance of the same Order after leave was granted against him. There was nothing in these two cases to denote that the contemnors were in fact aware of the application made against them, before leave was obtained. On the contrary, the respondents here were fully aware of the application by the AG when learned counsel for the respondents appeared on the date of the ex parte hearing, for reasons we have alluded to earlier. Since the respondents were fully aware of the AG’s application, in our view the failure of formal notice did not prejudice the respondents. [12] The respondents further contended that commencing this contempt proceeding at the highest court would deny them of the necessary right of appeal opened to them. Having perused and considered the nature of the