OCM Opportunities Fund II v Burhan Uray: Contempt of Court for Non-Compliance with Mareva Injunction

In OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP and Others v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) and Others, the High Court of Singapore, presided over by Belinda Ang Saw Ean J, found the first five defendants (Burhan Uray, Joseph Wong Kiia Tai, Soejono Varinata, H Sudradjat Djajapert Junda, and Hendrik Burhan) and Johnson Sihombing in contempt of court. The contempt arose from their failure to comply with a Mareva injunction requiring disclosure of assets. The court sentenced them to six months' imprisonment, emphasizing the importance of obeying court orders and the seriousness of their deliberate non-compliance.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

The contemnors were committed to prison for six months from the date of apprehension.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Contempt of court case where defendants and a non-party ignored court orders, leading to imprisonment for failing to disclose assets as required by a Mareva injunction.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
OCM Opportunities Fund II, LPPlaintiffLimited Liability PartnershipJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Gryphon Domestic VI, LLCPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Columbia / HCA Master Retirement TrustPlaintiffTrustJudgment for PlaintiffWon
OCM Emerging Markets Fund, LPPlaintiffLimited Liability PartnershipJudgment for PlaintiffWon
ASO I (Delaware) LLCPlaintiffLimited Liability PartnershipJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong)DefendantIndividualCommitted to prison for contempt of courtLost
Wong Kiia Tai Joseph alias Wong King TaiDefendantIndividualCommitted to prison for contempt of courtLost
Soejono VarinataDefendantIndividualCommitted to prison for contempt of courtLost
H. Sudradjat Djajapert JundaDefendantIndividualCommitted to prison for contempt of courtLost
Hendrik BurhanDefendantIndividualCommitted to prison for contempt of courtLost
Joseph SiswantoDefendantIndividualAppeal heardNeutral
P.T. Daya Guna Samudera TBKDefendantCorporationDefault judgment enteredLost
DGS International Finance Company BVDefendantCorporationNeutral
Rosmini Binte SulongDefendantIndividualNeutral
Chan Wei Long GaryDefendantIndividualNeutral
WMP Trading Pte LtdDefendantCorporationDefault judgment enteredLost
Betty Pai alias Pai ShaDefendantIndividualAppeal dismissedLost
Borneo Jaya Pte LtdDefendantCorporationAssets declared beneficial propertyLost
Natura Holdings Pte LtdDefendantCorporationAssets declared beneficial propertyLost
Handforth Profits LtdDefendantCorporationAssets declared beneficial propertyLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Davinder SinghDrew and Napier LLC
Yarni LoiDrew and Napier LLC
Vanita JegathesanDrew and Napier LLC
N SreenivasanStraits Law Practice LLC
Collin ChooStraits Law Practice LLC

4. Facts

  1. The majority defendants applied to set aside an injunction prohibiting disposal of assets worldwide, but the application was dismissed.
  2. The majority defendants were required to disclose all their assets whether in or outside Singapore.
  3. The plaintiffs applied to cross-examine the contemnors on the affidavits of assets.
  4. The contemnors did not turn up in court on the day fixed for cross-examination.
  5. A peremptory order was sought and granted, giving the contemnors another opportunity to appear for cross-examination.
  6. The contemnors again did not attend court for cross-examination, leading to default judgment.
  7. The contemnors failed to inform the plaintiffs of all the majority defendants’ assets.

5. Formal Citations

  1. OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP and Others v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) and Others (No 2), Suit 50/2004, NM 105/2004, [2005] SGHC 81

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Majority defendants' application to set aside the Mareva injunction was dismissed.
Mareva injunction issued prohibiting disposal of assets worldwide.
Application to suspend disclosure of assets was refused.
First set of affidavits of assets affirmed.
Second set of affidavits of assets affirmed.
Plaintiffs applied to cross-examine the contemnors on the affidavits of assets.
Majority defendants appealed against the order of 5 March 2004.
Application for variation of the Mareva injunction was dismissed.
Plaintiffs' application to cross-examine the contemnors was granted.
Majority defendants appealed against the order for cross-examination.
Majority defendants applied for a stay of the cross-examination.
Stay application was dismissed.
Majority defendants applied to discharge or vary the decision to dismiss the stay.
Application for an expedited appeal was dismissed.
Peremptory order granted for contemnors to appear for cross-examination.
Default judgment entered against D1 to D5, D7 and D11.
Civil Appeal No 19 of 2004 came up for hearing.
Majority defendants’ appeal was dismissed.
Plaintiffs granted leave to commence committal proceedings.
Contemnors were committed to prison for six months.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Contempt of Court
    • Outcome: The court found the defendants and a non-party in contempt of court for deliberately disobeying court orders and sentenced them to imprisonment.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Non-compliance with court orders
      • Failure to disclose assets
      • Failure to attend cross-examination
    • Related Cases:
      • [1952] P 285
      • [1846] 1 Coop t Cott 205
      • [1999] 3 SLR 197
      • [1897] 1 Ch 545
      • [1974] AC 273
  2. Service of Court Orders
    • Outcome: The court held that it had the discretion to retrospectively dispense with personal service and penal notice requirements, given the defendants' awareness of the orders and consequences of non-compliance.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Personal service
      • Dispensing with personal service
      • Penal notice requirements
    • Related Cases:
      • [1988] SLR 987
      • [1997] 1 WLR 1256
      • [2002] 3 HKC 339
      • [2000] 2 FLR 69

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Committal to prison
  2. Fine

9. Cause of Actions

  • Contempt of Court

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP v Burhan UrayHigh CourtYes[2004] SGHC 115SingaporeCited for a fuller account of the setting aside application of the Mareva injunction.
OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP v Burhan UrayHigh CourtYes[2004] 4 SLR 74SingaporeCited to explain the court's decision to order cross-examination of the contemnors due to inadequate affidavits of assets.
Allport Alfred James v Wong Soon LanCourt of AppealYes[1988] SLR 987SingaporeCited by Mr. Sreenivasan for the proposition that in respect of mandatory orders the court does not have discretion to dispense with service under O 45 r 7, but the court distinguished it.
Davy International Ltd v TazzymanEnglish Court of AppealYes[1997] 1 WLR 1256EnglandCited for the interpretation of O 45 rr 7(6) and 7(7) regarding the court's discretion to dispense with personal service of orders.
Axa China Region Insurance Co Ltd v Li Yu Ping EllenCourt of AppealYes[2002] 3 HKC 339Hong Kong SARCited for following Davy International Ltd v Tazzyman and applying it to a case involving a mandatory order to deliver documents.
Jolly v Staines County Court circuit judgeCourt of AppealYes[2000] 2 FLR 69EnglandCited for the principle that the court is empowered to dispense with the requirement of a penal notice on a mandatory order.
Hadkinson v HadkinsonN/AYes[1952] P 285N/ACited for the principle that every person must obey a court order unless and until it is discharged, even if they believe it to be irregular or void.
Chuck v CremerN/AYes[1846] 1 Coop t Cott 205N/ACited within Hadkinson v Hadkinson for the principle that a party knowing of an order should apply to the court to have it discharged, and must not disobey it.
Summit Holdings Ltd v Business Software AllianceN/AYes[1999] 3 SLR 197SingaporeCited for the principle that motive of disobedience is not relevant in determining if there was contempt, but is relevant for sentencing.
Seaward v PatersonN/AYes[1897] 1 Ch 545N/ACited for the principle that the court has jurisdiction to commit for contempt a third party who aided and abetted in the breach of an order.
Attorney-General v Times Newspapers LtdN/AYes[1974] AC 273N/ACited for the underlying purpose of the court’s jurisdiction in contempt, which is to uphold the rule of law by enforcing the court’s authority.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 45 r 7 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed)
O 57 r 9(4) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed)
O 52 r 2(2) of the Rules of Court
O 62 r 3(2)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Mareva injunction
  • Affidavit of assets
  • Cross-examination
  • Peremptory order
  • Contempt of court
  • Personal service
  • Penal notice
  • Committal proceedings

15.2 Keywords

  • Contempt of court
  • Mareva injunction
  • Asset disclosure
  • Singapore High Court
  • Civil procedure
  • Committal
  • Injunction

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Contempt of Court90
Civil Procedure85
Mareva Injunctions80
Injunctions70
Jurisdiction40
Evidence Law30
Contract Law20

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Contempt of Court
  • Injunctions