Lee Shieh-Peen Clement v Ho Chin Nguang: Contempt of Court for Mareva Injunction Breach
In Lee Shieh-Peen Clement and another v Ho Chin Nguang and others, the High Court of Singapore heard a summons for committal of the first and second defendants, Ho Chin Nguang and Ng Sow Moi, for contempt of court for allegedly breaching Mareva injunction orders. The plaintiffs claimed the defendants failed to disclose assets and the source of money used for expenses. The court, presided over by Philip Pillai JC, denied the application, finding no contumelious breach of the orders.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application denied.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application for committal for contempt of court is denied. The High Court found no breach of the Mareva injunction orders.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee Shieh-Peen Clement | Plaintiff | Individual | Application Denied | Lost | |
| Ho Chin Nguang | Defendant | Individual | Application Denied | Won | |
| Ng Sow Moi | Defendant | Individual | Application Denied | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Philip Pillai | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiffs sought committal of Defendants for contempt of court.
- Defendants were subject to a Mareva injunction.
- Plaintiffs alleged Defendants failed to disclose assets as required by the injunction.
- Plaintiffs alleged Defendants failed to disclose the source of funds used for expenses.
- Defendants argued they disclosed all required assets and sources of funds.
- The first Defendant received monthly cash allowances from PT Mega Fortune.
- The Defendants provided financial statements relating to private companies.
5. Formal Citations
- Lee Shieh-Peen Clement and another v Ho Chin Nguang and others, Suit No 285 of 2009 (Summons No 6045 of 2009), [2010] SGHC 12
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Interim Mareva injunction granted | |
| Final Mareva injunction granted | |
| Leave obtained for committal application | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Contempt of Court
- Outcome: The court found no contumelious breach of the orders and denied the application for committal.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Breach of Mareva Injunction
- Failure to disclose assets
- Failure to disclose source of funds
- Mareva Injunction
- Outcome: The court clarified the scope and purpose of the exceptions contained in the Mareva injunction.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Scope of Mareva Injunction
- Disclosure requirements
- Exceptions to Mareva Injunction
8. Remedies Sought
- Committal to Prison
9. Cause of Actions
- Contempt of Court
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Polly Peck International plc v Nadir (No 2) | N/A | Yes | [1992] 4 All ER 769 | N/A | Cited for the principle that courts will prevent defendants from frustrating the course of justice and the purpose of Mareva injunctions. |
| Khoo Wai Leong, Ronnie v Andrew J Hanam | N/A | Yes | [2003] SGMC 41 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court will not commit the judgment debtor unless there is credible evidence that the debtor’s non-compliance was wilful. |
| Re Barrell Enterprises | N/A | Yes | [1973] 1 WLR 19 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the purpose of a committal order is to punish the offender for his contempt. |
| Syarikat M Mohamed v Mahindapal Singh | N/A | Yes | [1991] 2 MLJ 112 | N/A | Cited for the principle that procedural rules must be strictly enforced in committal proceedings. |
| Cartier International BV v Lee Hock Lee | N/A | Yes | [1993] 1 SLR 616 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the person against whom the committal proceedings are brought, ‘needs to know with particularity what charge or charges they are faced with, charges which can land them in prison.’ |
| P J Holdings Inc v Ariel Singapore Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2009] 3 SLR 582 | Singapore | Cited for the application of Order 45 r 5 (1)(a) and the meaning of 'refuses or neglects'. |
| Re Quintin Dick | N/A | Yes | [1926] Ch 992 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the term “refuse or neglect” was not equivalent to “fail or omit”, and that the former implied a conscious act of volition whereas the latter did not. |
| Ng Tai Tuan v Chng Gim Huat Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1990] SLR 903 | Singapore | Cited for the view that the word “neglect” necessarily implies some element of fault. |
| Re London & Paris Banking Corp | N/A | Yes | (1874) 19 Eq 444 | N/A | Cited for the definition of negligence in paying a debt on demand. |
| DP Vijandran v Majlis Peguam | N/A | Yes | [1995] 2 MLJ 391 | N/A | Cited for the ordinary meaning of the word refuse is to decline to give. |
| Lowson v Percy Main & District Social Club | N/A | Yes | [1979] ICR 568 | N/A | Cited for similar sentiments on the meaning of refuse. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Mareva Injunction
- Contempt of Court
- Committal Proceedings
- Disclosure of Assets
- Source of Funds
- Affidavit of Assets
- Spending Limits
15.2 Keywords
- Mareva Injunction
- Contempt of Court
- Disclosure
- Assets
- Singapore
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Mareva Injunction | 90 |
| Injunctions | 75 |
| Committal Proceedings | 70 |
| Contempt of Court | 60 |
| Judgments and Orders | 50 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
| Appeal | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Injunctions
- Contempt of Court