Tan Beow Hiong v Tan Boon Aik: Contempt of Court, Committal Order, Matrimonial Assets

In Tan Beow Hiong v Tan Boon Aik, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Tan Beow Hiong against a committal order for contempt of court. The initial dispute arose from Tan Beow Hiong's failure to comply with a court order to vacate a matrimonial flat. Steven Chong J quashed the warrant for committal and set aside the 30-day sentence, finding that the procedure for activating the suspended committal order was flawed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed in part

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding a committal order for contempt of court. The High Court quashed the warrant for committal, setting aside the 30-day sentence.

1.7 Decision Date

3 August 2010

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Tan Beow Hiong	Appellant	Individual	Appeal allowed in part	Partial
Tan Boon Aik	Petitioner, Respondent	Individual	Appeal dismissed in part	Lost	Michael Eu of United Legal Alliance Josephine Kang of United Legal Alliance

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Steven Chong	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Michael Eu	United Legal Alliance
Josephine Kang	United Legal Alliance

4. Facts

A Decree Nisi dissolving the marriage of Mr Tan Boon Aik and Mdm Tan Beow Hiong was granted on 11 June 2002.
The Decree Nisi contained a consent order that the matrimonial flat be sold within 12 months.
The matrimonial flat was not sold by 18 September 2003.
On 20 July 2006, an Order of Court granted the Respondent sole conduct of the sale of the matrimonial flat.
On 5 March 2009, the Appellant was ordered to move out of the matrimonial flat within 5 months.
The Appellant did not move out of the matrimonial flat by 5 August 2009.
On 15 March 2010, the Appellant was committed to prison for 30 days.

5. Formal Citations

Tan Beow Hiong v Tan Boon Aik, Divorce Petition No 601644 of 2002 (Registrar's Appeal No 720002 of 2010), [2010] SGHC 218

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2002-06-11	Decree Nisi dissolving the marriage was granted.
2002-09-18	Decree Nisi was made absolute.
2006-07-20	Order of Court granted Respondent sole conduct of sale of matrimonial flat.
2008-09-23	Respondent applied for an order that the Appellant be compelled to move out of the matrimonial flat.
2009-03-05	Order of Court ordering the Appellant to move out of the matrimonial flat within 5 months.
2009-08-05	Deadline for Appellant to move out of the matrimonial flat.
2009-08-16	Appellant negotiated for the sale of the matrimonial flat.
2009-10-01	Appellant refused to execute the option to purchase.
2009-11-01	Respondent's solicitors applied to court to have the Registrar execute all conveyancing documents on Appellant's behalf.
2009-12-11	Appellant informed Mr Leong that she would only move out of the matrimonial flat after completion of the sale.
2009-12-30	Respondent's solicitors wrote to the Appellant informing her that they would be taking possession of the matrimonial flat on 4 January 2010.
2010-01-04	Respondent's solicitors attempted to take possession of the matrimonial flat.
2010-01-06	Respondent made an ex parte application for leave to apply for an order of committal of the Appellant.
2010-01-07	Documents served on the Appellant.
2010-03-01	Application for the committal order was heard by DJ Sowaran Singh.
2010-03-12	Appellant filed an appeal.
2010-03-14	Appellant was required to move out of the matrimonial flat by noon.
2010-03-15	Appellant was committed to prison for 30 days.
2010-04-03	Appellant served 18 days in prison.
2010-08-04	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Contempt of Court
- Outcome: The High Court quashed the warrant for committal, setting aside the 30-day sentence.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Breach of court order
  - Failure to comply with court order
  - Mens rea for civil contempt
  - Procedure for activating suspended committal order
- Related Cases:
  - [2000] 2 FLR 44
  - [1992] 1 AC 191
  - [1913] AC 417
  - [1987] 1 QB 555
  - [1985] 1 QB 1191
  - [1971] 2 QB 67
  - [1969] 3 WLR 699
  - [1984] FLR 278
  - [2009] 3 SLR(R) 582
  - [1975] Fam 17
  - [1977] Fam 138
  - [2007] 2 SLR(R) 518
  - [1991] 2 SLR(R) 869
  - [2008] EWCA Civ 389
  - [1990] 2 FLR 465
  - [1971] Ch 700
  - [1993] 1 FLR 169
  - [1988] 1 FLR 179
  - [1991] 1 FLR 355
  - [1978] CA Transcript 166
  - [1993] 2 FLR 377
  - [1969] 2 WLR 99
  - [1994] 1 WLR 493
  - [2005] 1 WLR 2986
  - [1984] CAT No 488
  - [1997] 1 WLR 314
  - [1987] 1 WLR 1076
  - (1895) 11 TLR 203
  - [1946] 62 TLR 217
  - [1992] 2 FLR 40
  - [1999] 2 SLR(R) 592
  - [1996] 2 SLR(R) 886

8. Remedies Sought

Setting aside the Committal Order

9. Cause of Actions

Contempt of Court

10. Practice Areas

Family Litigation
Civil Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Griffin v Griffin	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2000] 2 FLR 44	England and Wales	Cited regarding the common-law power to commit to prison for contempt of court.
Attorney General v Times Newspapers Ltd	House of Lords	Yes	[1992] 1 AC 191	United Kingdom	Cited to distinguish between criminal and civil contempt of court.
Scott v Scott	House of Lords	Yes	[1913] AC 417	United Kingdom	Cited to illustrate that breach of an injunction is a civil contempt of court.
Linnett v Coles	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1987] 1 QB 555	England and Wales	Cited regarding the description of civil contempt as a common law misdemeanour.
Lee v Walker	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1985] 1 QB 1191	England and Wales	Cited regarding the description of civil contempt as a common law misdemeanour.
Comet Products UK Ltd v Hawkex Plastics Ltd	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1971] 2 QB 67	England and Wales	Cited to show that civil contempt has criminal overtones.
Re Bramblevale Ltd	Chancery Division	Yes	[1969] 3 WLR 699	England and Wales	Cited to show that civil contempt has criminal overtones.
Lamb v Lamb	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1984] FLR 278	England and Wales	Cited to show that civil contempt has criminal overtones.
P J Holdings Inc v Ariel Singapore Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2009] 3 SLR(R) 582	Singapore	Cited to show that committal proceedings are a measure of last resort.
Danchevsky v Danchevsky	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1975] Fam 17	England and Wales	Cited to show that committal proceedings are a measure of last resort, especially in family and matrimonial matters.
Ansah v Ansah	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1977] Fam 138	England and Wales	Cited to show that committal proceedings are a measure of last resort, especially in family and matrimonial matters.
Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd v Karaha Bodas Co LLC and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR(R) 518	Singapore	Cited to show that contempt must be proved on the criminal standard, ie beyond a reasonable doubt.
Lee Sian Hee (trading as Lee Sian Hee Pork Trader) v Oh Kheng Soon (trading as Ban Hon Trading Enterprise)	High Court	Yes	[1991] 2 SLR(R) 869	Singapore	Cited regarding stay of execution of a judgment pending the hearing of an appeal.
Islamic Investment Company of the Gulf (Bahamas) Ltd v Symphony Gems NV & others	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] EWCA Civ 389	England and Wales	Cited regarding the court's power to quash an order for committal and sentence when the contemnor has already served the sentence.
Banton v Banton	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1990] 2 FLR 465	England and Wales	Cited regarding appellate intervention where the lower court has made a decision in the exercise of judicial discretion.
Knight v Clifton	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1971] Ch 700	England and Wales	Cited regarding the mens rea necessary to establish a finding of civil contempt.
Jordan v Jordan	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1993] 1 FLR 169	England and Wales	Cited regarding the breach of an order of court.
Smith v Smith	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1988] 1 FLR 179	England and Wales	Cited regarding committal not being the natural consequence of a finding of contempt.
Re M (Minors) (Access: Contempt: Committal)	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1991] 1 FLR 355	England and Wales	Cited regarding the test for committal orders in family cases.
Kavanagh v Kavanagh	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1978] CA Transcript 166	England and Wales	Cited regarding the wife's attempts to obtain possession.
Jones v Jones	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1993] 2 FLR 377	England and Wales	Cited regarding the court's authority to deploy committal orders.
re W (B) (An Infant)	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1969] 2 WLR 99	England and Wales	Cited regarding the court's discretion in dealing with breaches of a suspended order for committal.
Villiers v Villiers	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1994] 1 WLR 493	England and Wales	Cited regarding the court's discretion in dealing with breaches of a suspended order for committal.
Phillips and others v Symes (No 3)	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2005] 1 WLR 2986	England and Wales	Cited regarding the court's discretion in dealing with breaches of a suspended order for committal.
Lakin v Lakin	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1984] CAT No 488	England and Wales	Cited regarding the procedure to be adopted.
Nicholls v Nicholls	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1997] 1 WLR 314	England and Wales	Cited regarding the procedure to be adopted.
Wright v Jess	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1987] 1 WLR 1076	England and Wales	Cited regarding the procedure to be adopted.
Lewis v Pontypridd, Caerphilly, and Newport Railway Company	Not Available	Yes	(1895) 11 TLR 203	England and Wales	Cited regarding the burden of convincing the court of his defence.
Gordon v Gordon	Not Available	Yes	[1946] 62 TLR 217	England and Wales	Cited regarding the strict adherence to all procedural rules.
Smith v Smith (Contempt: Committal)	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1992] 2 FLR 40	England and Wales	Cited regarding the discretion conferred by both statutory provisions.
Summit Holdings Ltd and another v Business Software Alliance	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 2 SLR(R) 592	Singapore	Cited regarding the law of contempt.
Aw Hoon v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[1996] 2 SLR(R) 886	Singapore	Cited regarding the courts having no power to suspend criminal sentences.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)
O 45 and O 52 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)
O 52, rr 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court
Order 45 r 5(1) of the Rules of Court
O 52 r 6 of the Rules of Court
O 55 r 6(5) of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 8 of the Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 7 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)	Singapore
ss 20, 22 and 37 of the SCJA	Singapore
Registration of Criminals Act (Cap 268, 1985 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 4 of the ROCA	Singapore
s 2 of the ROCA	Singapore
s 37(5) of the SCJA	Singapore
s 105 of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 108 of the Evidence Act	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Contempt of court
Committal order
Matrimonial flat
Decree Nisi
Suspended sentence
Vacant possession
Warrant for committal

15.2 Keywords

Contempt of court
Committal order
Matrimonial assets
Family law
Civil procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Contempt of Court	90
Matrimonial Proceedings	80
Family Law	75
Enforcement of Court Orders	70
Civil Procedure	60
Property Law	50
Summary Judgement	30

16. Subjects

Family Law
Contempt of Court
Civil Procedure
Matrimonial Assets