Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Pertamina Energy Trading: Contempt of Court & Mareva Injunction

Karaha Bodas Co LLC (KBC) brought contempt proceedings against Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd (Petral), Michael Joseph Pilkington of Clyde & Co, Hong Kong, and Clyde & Co, Hong Kong, alleging misuse of information disclosed under a Mareva injunction. The High Court of Singapore, Tay Yong Kwang J, dismissed the application, finding that KBC had not proven that the information was used for a collateral purpose. The court also addressed the liability of solicitors and law firms in contempt proceedings.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed against all respondents.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Contempt proceedings for alleged breach of Mareva injunction. The court dismissed the application, finding no misuse of information for a collateral purpose.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Karaha Bodas Co LLCPlaintiff, RespondentCorporationApplication dismissedLost
Pertamina Energy Trading LtdDefendant, ApplicantCorporationApplication dismissedLost
Pertamina Energy Services Pte LtdDefendantCorporationNeutralNeutral
Michael Joseph PilkingtonRespondentIndividualApplication dismissedWon
Clyde & CoRespondentLaw FirmApplication dismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tay Yong KwangJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Tan Kay KhengWong Partnership
Alvin YeoWong Partnership
Tan Hsiang YueWong Partnership
Oommen MathewHaq & Selvam
Raj MohanHaq & Selvam

4. Facts

  1. A Mareva Injunction was ordered in favour of the Plaintiffs on 22 December 2004.
  2. Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd disclosed remittance of HK$890,022.34 to KBC's solicitors.
  3. KBC garnished the remitted funds in Dah Sing Bank, Hong Kong.
  4. The originating summons and Mareva Injunction were set aside by Justice Choo Han Teck.
  5. The setting aside order was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
  6. The application was dismissed against all the respondents.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd and Another, OS 1646/2004, NM 115/2005, [2006] SGHC 105

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Mareva Injunction ordered in favour of the Plaintiffs.
Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd disclosed remittance of HK$890,022.34 to KBC's solicitors.
KBC garnished the remitted funds in Dah Sing Bank, Hong Kong.
Originating Summons and Mareva Injunction set aside by Justice Choo Han Teck.
Setting aside order affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
High Court granted leave for the application.
Appeal to be heard in April 2006.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Contempt of Court
    • Outcome: The court found that contempt of court had not been made out as the first defendant was not able to satisfy the court that the information given was misused in that it was used for a collateral purpose.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Breach of implied undertaking
      • Frustration of operation of injunction
  2. Mareva Injunction
    • Outcome: The court determined the scope of the Mareva injunction and whether the information was given pursuant to an exception and covered by the implied undertaking.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Scope of obligation under exception
      • Use of information for collateral purpose
  3. Implied Undertaking
    • Outcome: The court considered whether the information was used for a collateral purpose, breaching the implied undertaking.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Collateral purpose
      • Voluntary disclosure

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Fine
  2. Costs

9. Cause of Actions

  • Contempt of Court

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Energy

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Hong Lam Marine Pte Ltd v Koh Chye HengCourt of AppealYes[1998] 3 SLR 833SingaporeCited for the principle that voluntarily disclosed documents in legal proceedings are not subject to the implied undertaking to the court.
Riddick v Thomas Board MillsN/AYes[1977] QB 881England and WalesCited for the principle that documents obtained on discovery are subject to an implied undertaking not to use them for another purpose.
Datuk Hong Kim Sui v Tiu Shi KianPrivy CouncilYes[1987] 1 MLJ 345MalaysiaCited regarding the liability of directors and officers of companies for contempt of court.
Watkins v A J Wright (Electrical) LtdN/AYes[1996] 3 All ER 31England and WalesCited regarding a solicitor's liability for breach of implied undertaking as to documents disclosed in the discovery process.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Order 45 r 5(1)(ii) Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Mareva Injunction
  • Contempt of Court
  • Implied Undertaking
  • Collateral Purpose
  • Garnishee Order
  • Enforcement Proceedings

15.2 Keywords

  • Mareva Injunction
  • Contempt of Court
  • Singapore
  • Pertamina
  • Karaha Bodas
  • Garnishee Order

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Mareva Injunctions95
Contempt of Court95
Injunctions90
Legal Profession Act70
Civil Procedure60

16. Subjects

  • Contempt of Court
  • Injunctions
  • Civil Procedure
  • Legal Ethics