PT Makindo v Aperchance: Contempt of Court for Misleading Advertisements

In 2010, PT Makindo, an Indonesian investment bank, applied to the Singapore High Court for an order to fine Aperchance Co Ltd, a Hong Kong company, and its directors for contempt of court. The dispute arose from misleading advertisements placed by both parties in Indonesian newspapers regarding orders made by the Singapore High Court in 2004. Tan Lee Meng J dismissed PT Makindo's application with costs, finding that Aperchance did not breach the court order and that PT Makindo could pursue a defamation claim instead.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

PT Makindo sought to fine Aperchance for contempt of court due to misleading advertisements about a past Singapore High Court order. The application was dismissed.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
PT Makindo (formerly known as PT Makindo TBK)ApplicantCorporationApplication dismissedLost
Aperchance Co LtdRespondentCorporationApplication dismissedWon
Otto RodusekRespondentIndividualApplication dismissedWon
Toh Keng SiongRespondentIndividualApplication dismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Lee MengJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Chandra MohanRajah & Tann LLP
Mabelle TayRajah & Tann LLP
Davinder SinghDrew & Napier LLC
Alecia QuahDrew & Napier LLC
Cheryl TayDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. PT Makindo and Aperchance placed misleading advertisements in Indonesian newspapers.
  2. The advertisements concerned orders made by the Singapore High Court in February 2004.
  3. PT Makindo applied for an order to fine Aperchance for contempt of court.
  4. The Mareva injunction obtained by Aperchance in 2003 was set aside in February 2004.
  5. PT Makindo claimed Aperchance's advertisements disregarded the 2004 order setting aside the injunction.
  6. Aperchance argued it complied with the 2004 order by serving copies to relevant parties in Singapore.
  7. The court found Aperchance did not breach the 2004 order.

5. Formal Citations

  1. PT Makindo (formerly known as PT Makindo TBK) v Aperchance Co Ltd and others, Originating Summons No 190 of 2010 (Summons No 1001 of 2010/F), [2010] SGHC 221

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Aperchance Co Ltd commenced Suit No 1149 of 2003/H against PT Makindo and others.
Aperchance obtained a worldwide Mareva injunction against PT Makindo and others.
The Jusuf defendants filed two applications to set aside the Mareva injunction.
Lai J set aside the Mareva injunction and the order for service of the Writ.
Costs were taxed, and Aperchance was ordered to pay costs of $122,557.48 to the Jusuf defendants.
PT Makindo's representatives were called for an interview by Indonesian authorities.
PT Makindo published misleading advertisements in Indonesian newspapers.
Aperchance retaliated by placing advertisements in Indonesian newspapers.
PT Makindo's lawyers wrote to Aperchance regarding the advertisements.
PT Makindo filed Originating Summons No 190 of 2010/D for leave to apply for an order of committal.
Leave was granted to PT Makindo.
The application was heard.
Judgment reserved.
The appeal to this decision in Civil Appeal No 137 of 2010 was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Contempt of Court
    • Outcome: The court held that the respondents were not in contempt of court.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Disobedience of court order
      • Interference with administration of justice
      • Misrepresentation of court proceedings

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Fine
  2. Imprisonment

9. Cause of Actions

  • Contempt of Court

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • Finance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Attorney-General v Times Newspapers LtdN/AYes[1974] 1 AC 273N/ACited for the principle that the authority of the courts should not be imperilled and recourse to them should not be subject to unjustifiable interference.
Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd v Karaha Bodas Co LLC and othersSingapore Court of AppealYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 518SingaporeCited for the principle that contempt of court must be proven beyond reasonable doubt and for the rationale for punishing contempt.
In re Bramblevale LtdN/AYes[1970] 1 Ch 128N/ACited for the principle that contempt of court is an offence of a criminal character and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani v King-EmperorN/AYes[1945] 1 AC 264N/ACited for the principle that the summary power of punishing for contempt should be used sparingly and only in serious cases.
Dunn v Bevan; Brodie v BevanN/AYes[1922] 1 Ch 276N/ACited for the principle that misrepresentation of a judgment in a way that injures the reputation of one of the parties to the action, the remedy open to the injured party is to sue for defamation.
Danchevsky v DanchevskyN/AYes[1975] Fam 17N/ACited for the principle that an order of committal is regarded as a measure of last resort and should not be sought when there are other reasonable alternatives.
Re Bineet Kumar SinghN/AYes[2003] 3 LRI 375N/ACited for the principle that it is incumbent upon the courts of justice to preserve their proceedings from being misrepresented.
Allport Alfred James v Wong Soon LanN/AYes[1988] 2 SLR(R) 520SingaporeCited for the significance of a penal notice to ensure that the person against whom the order is made fully appreciates the consequences of any non-compliance.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 52 r 1
Rules of Court O 52 r 2(2)
Rules of Court O 52 r 5(3)
Rules of Court O 45 r 7

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Contempt of court
  • Misleading advertisements
  • Mareva injunction
  • Penal notice
  • Service of order
  • Defamation

15.2 Keywords

  • Contempt
  • Advertisement
  • Injunction
  • Singapore
  • Court Order

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Contempt of Court70
Mareva Injunction60
Commercial Disputes60
Misrepresentation50
Jurisdiction40
Litigation40
Contract Law30

16. Subjects

  • Contempt of Court
  • Civil Procedure