Abdul Aziz v Rubiah: Civil Contempt & Enforceability After Death

In Abdul Aziz bin Mohamed Yatim v Rubiah bte Rahmat, the High Court of Singapore addressed whether civil contempt proceedings pending against a contemnor may be continued against the contemnor's personal representative after the contemnor's death, and whether an order of court is enforceable by committal proceedings against a third party actively involved in the contemnor's breach, even after the contemnor's death. The court allowed the appeal in part, holding that the proceedings against the personal representative could not continue, but the proceedings against the parents could proceed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed in part; committal proceedings against the personal representative of the deceased contemnor cannot continue, but proceedings against the parents may proceed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court addresses whether civil contempt proceedings can continue against a contemnor's representative after death and against third parties.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Abdul Aziz bin Mohamed YatimAppellantIndividualAppeal allowed in partPartial
Rubiah bte RahmatRespondentIndividualAppeal allowed in partLost
Abu Hasrin bin RahmatAppellantIndividualAppeal allowedWon
Mustafa bin Kassim @ Rahmat bin Abu KasimAppellantIndividualAppeal dismissed in partLost
Nuria bin WahnanAppellantIndividualAppeal dismissed in partLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Mohamed HashimMohamed Hashim & Madelene Sng
Soraya Hafsa bte IbrahimSoraya H Ibrahim & Co

4. Facts

  1. Mr. Abdul Aziz and Madam Rubiah divorced on 24 July 2002.
  2. The Syariah Court granted custody of their child to Madam Rubiah, with access to Mr. Abdul Aziz.
  3. The Syariah Court order was registered as an order of the District Court on 18 August 2003.
  4. Mr. Abdul Aziz alleged Madam Rubiah breached the Court Order.
  5. Mr. Abdul Aziz obtained leave to commence committal proceedings against Madam Rubiah on 27 October 2003.
  6. Madam Rubiah passed away before the committal proceedings could be heard.
  7. Mr. Abdul Aziz applied to prosecute the contempt proceedings against Madam Rubiah’s personal representative and for leave to commence proceedings against Madam Rubiah’s parents.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Abdul Aziz bin Mohamed Yatim v Rubiah bte Rahmat, OS 650142/2003, RAS 720029/2005, [2006] SGHC 231

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Divorce decree issued by the Syariah Court, granting custody to Madam Rubiah and access to Mr. Abdul Aziz.
Syariah Court order registered as an order of the District Court.
Mr. Abdul Aziz obtained leave to commence committal proceedings against Madam Rubiah.
Summons filed against Madam Rubiah.
District Judge ordered that committal proceedings be allowed to continue against Mr. Abu Hasrin and gave liberty to apply for an order of committal against Madam Rubiah’s parents.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Civil Contempt
    • Outcome: The court held that civil contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and should not be brought or allowed to be prosecuted against the personal representatives of an alleged contemnor who has passed away.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Enforceability of court orders
      • Continuation of proceedings after death of contemnor
      • Liability of third parties for contemnor's breach

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Committal Order

9. Cause of Actions

  • Contempt of Court

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation
  • Family Law

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Purse v PurseNot specifiedYes[1981] Fam 143England and WalesCited to illustrate that certain proceedings, like divorce, abate upon the death of a party.
Beaumont v BeaumontNot specifiedYes[1933] P 39England and WalesCited in Purse v Purse to illustrate that certain proceedings, like divorce, abate upon the death of a party.
Sivakolunthu Kumarasamy v Shanmugam Nagaiah & AnorCourt of AppealYes[1987] SLR 182SingaporeCited to show that orders for maintenance or custody cease upon the death of the party in whose favour it is made, but that the nature of the proceedings is important in determining whether a right of action survives death.
Janan Harb v His Majesty King Fahd bin Abdul AzizEnglish Court of AppealYes[2006] 1 WLR 578England and WalesCited to support the proposition that whether proceedings can continue after death depends on the nature of the proceedings and the relevant statutory provisions.
Re Bramblevale LtdNot specifiedYes[1970] Ch 128England and WalesCited to support the principle that civil contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and attract procedural safeguards familiar to criminal law.
Polygram Records Sdn Bhd and Others v Phua Tai EngNot specifiedYes[1984-1985] SLR 810SingaporeCited as accepting the principles in Re Bramblevale Ltd regarding the quasi-criminal nature of civil contempt proceedings.
Allport Alfred James v Wong Soon LanNot specifiedYes[1988] SLR 987SingaporeCited as accepting the principles in Re Bramblevale Ltd regarding the quasi-criminal nature of civil contempt proceedings.
Summit Holdings Ltd v Business Software AllianceNot specifiedYes[1999] 3 SLR 197SingaporeCited for the articulation of the principles that contempt of court is an offence of a criminal character and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Hambly v TrottNot specifiedYes(1776) 1 Cowp. 371, 98 E.R. 1136England and WalesCited for the principle that private criminal injuries or wrongs, as well as all public crimes, are buried with the offender.
Mosey v Mosey and BarkerNot specifiedYes[1956] P 26England and WalesDistinguished as a purely civil matrimonial dispute, not concerning contempt proceedings, and involving an enforceable claim secured against the husband’s property.
Sher Singh v R P KapurNot specifiedYes[1968] AIR Punj 217IndiaDistinguished because it concerned the death of the party initiating contempt proceedings, not the alleged contemnor.
Letang v CooperNot specifiedYes[1965] 1 QB 232England and WalesCited for the definition of a cause of action.
Sugden v SugdenNot specifiedYes[1957] P 120England and WalesCited for the definition of a cause of action.
Johnson v WaltonNot specifiedYes[1990] 1 FLR 350England and WalesCited for the principle that contempt of court proceedings are intended to uphold the authority of the court and are not intended to provide solace or compensation to the plaintiff.
Ainsbury v MillingtonNot specifiedYes[1987] 1 WLR 379England and WalesCited for the principle that courts decide disputes between parties and do not pronounce on abstract questions of law when there is no dispute to be resolved.
Re MNot specifiedYes[1994] 1 AC 377England and WalesCited for the principle that a finding of contempt against a government department or minister would vindicate the requirements of justice.
Witham v HollowayHigh Court of AustraliaYes(1995) 183 CLR 525AustraliaCited to demonstrate that the jurisdiction of the court in cases of civil contempt could extend to punishment and could be exercised even if the parties had settled their differences or if compliance was no longer possible or was not going to be forthcoming in any event.
Canadian Transport v AlsburyNot specifiedYes(1952) 7 WWR 49CanadaCited to demonstrate that the jurisdiction of the court in cases of civil contempt could extend to punishment and could be exercised even if the parties had settled their differences or if compliance was no longer possible or was not going to be forthcoming in any event.
Z Ltd v A-Z & AA-LLNot specifiedYes[1982] QB 558England and WalesCited for the principle that an order of the court is enforceable by committal proceedings not only against the party named in the order but also against any other person actively involved in the defendant’s breach.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 15 rr 6A
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 15 r 7

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) s 10(1)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Civil contempt
  • Committal proceedings
  • Personal representative
  • Abetment
  • Syariah Court
  • Court Order
  • Cause of action
  • Quasi-criminal
  • Enforcement
  • Abatement

15.2 Keywords

  • contempt of court
  • civil contempt
  • enforcement
  • death
  • personal representative
  • Singapore
  • family law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Contempt of Court90
Family Law50
Personal representative40
Succession Law30

16. Subjects

  • Civil Contempt
  • Family Law
  • Civil Procedure