Lim Meng Chai v Heng Chok Keng: Contempt of Court & Stakeholder Obligations

In Lim Meng Chai v Heng Chok Keng, the High Court of Singapore, on 20 February 2001, found Mr. Krishna Bhaktavatsalu, a solicitor, in contempt of court for failing to comply with court orders related to the handling of stakeholding monies in a divorce case between Lim Meng Chai and Heng Chok Keng. The court imposed a total imprisonment term of 4 months, citing Mr. Krishna's deliberate non-compliance, dishonesty, and deception. The court also referred the matter to the Attorney-General's Chambers and the Law Society for further action.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Contempt of court found; imprisonment term imposed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Solicitor Krishna Bhaktavatsalu found in contempt for disobeying court orders regarding stakeholding monies in a divorce case. Imprisonment imposed.

1.7 Decision Date

19 February 2001

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Lim Meng Chai	Plaintiff	Individual	Application against Mr. Lim withdrawn	Withdrawn	Goh Phai Cheng of Independent Practitioner Tan Shiew Hwa of Tan Loh & Wong Tan Phuay Khiang of Tan Loh & Wong
Heng Chok Keng	Defendant	Individual	Successful in application for committal	Won	Tan Shiew Hwa of Tan Loh & Wong Tan Phuay Khiang of Tan Loh & Wong
Krishna Bhaktavatsalu	Respondent	Individual	Found in contempt of court	Lost	V K Rai of V K Rai & Partners Leslie Netto of Netto Tan & S Magin Magintharan of Netto Tan & S Magin

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chan Seng Onn	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Goh Phai Cheng	Independent Practitioner
Tan Shiew Hwa	Tan Loh & Wong
Tan Phuay Khiang	Tan Loh & Wong
V K Rai	V K Rai & Partners
Leslie Netto	Netto Tan & S Magin
Magintharan	Netto Tan & S Magin

4. Facts

Mr. Krishna, a solicitor, was the stakeholder for the net proceeds from the sale of a flat jointly owned by ex-spouses Mr. Lim and Mdm. Heng.
A deed of settlement required Krishna & Co to hold the net proceeds and utilize them solely for paying off the mortgage loan due to MBF Finance Berhad.
Krishna & Co received S$101,454.19 from the sale of the flat and advised the parties that there was a balance of S$87,789.09 after deductions.
Despite reminders from Mdm. Heng's solicitors, Krishna & Co failed to release the stakeholding monies.
Mr. Krishna informed Mdm. Heng's solicitors that Mr. Lim refused to authorize the release of the monies.
The High Court ordered Krishna & Co to forward the stakeholding monies to Mdm. Heng's solicitors.
Mr. Krishna failed to comply with the court order, providing various excuses and misleading information.
Mr. Krishna made false statements about depositing the stakeholding monies in a fixed deposit account and later depositing them into his client account.
Mr. Krishna issued dud cheques to Mdm. Heng's solicitors.
Mr. Krishna disobeyed a court order to produce the December 2000 bank statement for his clients account.

5. Formal Citations

Lim Meng Chai v Heng Chok Keng and Another, OS 116/2000, [2001] SGHC 33

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1998-07-01	Divorce petition filed by Mr. Lim
1999-05-01	Marriage of Mr. Lim and Mdm. Heng annulled
2000-01-01	Originating Summons filed by Mr. Krishna on behalf of Mr. Lim
2000-05-11	Deed of settlement made between Mr. Lim and Mdm. Heng
2000-06-06	Krishna & Co received cheque for sale of flat
2000-07-20	Krishna & Co advised parties of balance sum
2000-08-24	First written reminder from Mdm Heng's solicitors
2000-08-31	Second written reminder from Mdm Heng's solicitors
2000-09-08	Third written reminder from Mdm Heng's solicitors
2000-09-18	Mr. Krishna informed Mr. Tan that Mr. Lim refused to authorize release of stakeholding monies
2000-09-26	TLW applied for orders under Summons-in-Chambers No. 603944/00
2000-10-03	Mr. Lim appointed Myintsoe Mohamed Yang & Selvaraj to act for him
2000-10-11	Hearing of SIC before Lai Siu Chiu J; Mr. Lim discharged his solicitors and acted in person; prayer 2 of the SIC was amended orally
2000-10-11	TLW informed Krishna & Co that Lai J had granted an order in terms of all the prayers in their clients SIC
2000-10-12	TLW wrote to Krishna & Co enclosing a letter signed by the ex-spouses, giving irrevocable authority to release the net sale proceeds
2000-10-12	Krishna & Co requested for reasonable notice for verification of the document
2000-10-18	TLW served on Krishna & Co their letter enclosing the duly sealed order of court and a copy of the SIC
2000-10-20	TLW wrote a letter stating that both Mr Lim and Mdm Heng required him to hand over the stakeholding monies
2000-10-21	Mr. Krishna said that he had uplifted the fixed deposit in respect of the stakeholding monies
2000-10-21	TLW followed up with another letter setting out the telephone conversations between Mr Tan and Mr Krishna
2000-10-23	Krishna & Co took out a Summons-in-Chambers No. 604221 of 2000 to vary paragraph 1 of Lai Js order
2000-10-23	TLW again asked Krishna & Co for a copy of documents
2000-10-28	TLW made the 3rd request for the same documents
2000-11-01	The request was repeated
2000-11-06	Lee Seiu Kin JC dismissed Mr Krishnas SIC application
2000-11-06	TLW wrote to Krishna & Co referring to a discussion between Mr Krishna and Mr Tan at the High Court
2000-11-07	Alfred Dodwell faxed a letter to Krishna & Co stating that their client would like the ancillaries of the divorce to be resolved prior to any further step being taken
2000-11-08	TLW forwarded a copy of Lee JCs order
2000-11-09	Alfred Dodwell wrote to TLW stating that they would be making the necessary application on the next day
2000-11-09	The LS copy of Lee JCs order was served on Krishna & Co
2000-11-13	TLW filed an ex-parte SIC for leave to apply for an order of committal against both Mr Krishna and Mr Lim
2000-11-17	Lee Seiu Kin JC granted leave
2000-11-20	The application by Mr Lim in the Family Court was withdrawn
2000-11-22	TLW wrote to Krishna & Co informing them of the same
2000-11-28	TLW took out a Notice of Motion for an order that Mr Krishna and Mr Lim be committed to prison
2000-12-08	Ang & Partners wrote to TLW confirming that Mr Lim had no objections to the release of the stakeholding monies
2000-12-08	Ang & Partners wrote another letter to Krishna & Co
2000-12-11	TLW received a faxed letter from Krishna & Co confirming that they would be forwarding the cheque for the stakeholding sums
2000-12-15	The Motion was heard before Choo Han Teck JC
2000-12-15	TLW received a faxed letter dated 14 December 2000 from Krishna & Co enclosing a copy of his firms clients account OCBC cheque no. 397564 dated 15 December 2000 for the sum of S$87,789.09 made in favour of MBF
2000-12-18	The original of the cheque was still not received by TLW
2000-12-18	TLW wrote again to Netto Tan & S Magin
2000-12-22	At the resumed hearing, Choo Han Teck JC was told that the matter could not be settled
2000-12-22	TLW received in their mail the original of Krishna & Cos letter dated 14 December 2000 together with the original MBF cheque
2000-12-22	TLW received two cheques dated 22 December 2000, made payable to TLW
2000-12-26	Their bank informed them that payment on the two cheques had been stopped
2000-12-26	TLW immediately wrote to inform Mr Krishnas solicitors of the stop payment
2000-12-28	Solicitors for Mr Krishna and the applicant appeared before AR Sharon Lim
2000-12-28	TLW enclosed the original MBF cheque and returned it to Netto Tan & S Magin
2000-12-28	Mr Krishna telephoned Mr Tan and explained that he stopped payment on his two OCBC cheques
2000-12-30	TLW wrote to Mr Krishnas solicitors to inform them that they had yet to receive the three cashiers orders as promised
2001-01-04	Mr Krishna telephoned Mr Tan and insisted on seeing him at TLWs office
2001-01-05	Hearing before Chan Seng Onn JC
2001-01-08	Mr Magintharans filed application for discharge
2001-01-11	Krishna & Co faxed and posted an urgent letter to TLW stating Mr Krishnas new proposal to settle the sum
2001-01-12	Hearing before Chan Seng Onn JC
2001-01-13	Hearing before Chan Seng Onn JC
2001-01-17	Adjourned hearing before Chan Seng Onn JC
2001-01-18	Resumed hearing before Chan Seng Onn JC
2001-02-20	Final hearing before Chan Seng Onn JC

7. Legal Issues

Contempt of Court
- Outcome: The court found Mr. Krishna in contempt of court for deliberately failing to comply with court orders and imposed a term of imprisonment.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Disobedience of court orders
  - Failure to comply with orders to release stakeholding monies
  - Misleading the court
  - Suppression of evidence

8. Remedies Sought

Order of committal to prison

9. Cause of Actions

Contempt of Court

10. Practice Areas

Civil Litigation
Divorce Law

11. Industries

Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
No cited cases

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court Order 45 Rule 5
Rules of Court Order 45 Rule 7 (4)
Rules of Court Order 45 Rule 7 (7)
Rules of Court Order 52 Rule 4

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161)	Singapore
section 57 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161)	Singapore
section 85(3) of the Legal Profession Act	Singapore
section 193 of the Penal Code	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Stakeholder
Contempt of court
Deed of settlement
Stakeholding monies
Garnishee order
Penal notice
Dud cheque
Clients account
Order of committal
Perjury

15.2 Keywords

Contempt
Stakeholder
Solicitor
Court order
Imprisonment
Dishonesty
Deception

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Contempt of Court	90
Stakeholder Duties	80
Legal Profession Act	75
Solicitor's duties	70
Professional Discipline	65
Breach of Trust	60
Duty of Candour	60
Professional Ethics	60
Consent Orders	50
Family Law	40
Family Dispute	35
Estoppel	30

16. Subjects

Legal Profession
Contempt of Court
Civil Procedure