PT Makindo v Aperchance Co Ltd: Contempt of Court for Misrepresenting Court Order

PT Makindo appealed against the High Court's decision to dismiss its application to cite Aperchance Co Ltd for contempt of court. The dispute arose from Aperchance's advertisements in Indonesian newspapers misrepresenting a Singapore High Court order. The Court of Appeal, comprising Chan Sek Keong CJ, Chao Hick Tin JA, and Kan Ting Chiu J, dismissed the appeal, holding that misrepresentation of a court order after proceedings have concluded does not constitute contempt of court. The court stated that the appropriate remedy lies in a defamation claim.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal dismissed; misrepresentation of a court order after proceedings end does not constitute contempt of court. Remedy lies in defamation.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Second RespondentRespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedWon
PT Makindo (formerly known as PT Makindo TBK)AppellantCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
Aperchance Co LtdRespondentCorporationAppeal DismissedWon
Third RespondentRespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chan Sek KeongChief JusticeYes
Chao Hick TinJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Kan Ting ChiuJudgeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Davinder Singh SCDrew & Napier LLC
Alecia QuahDrew & Napier LLC
Nabil MustafizDrew & Napier LLC
Chandra Mohan s/o RethnamRajah & Tann LLP
Gillian HauwRajah & Tann LLP
Mabelle Tay JiahuiRajah & Tann LLP

4. Facts

  1. Aperchance Co Ltd commenced Suit No 1149 of 2003 against PT Makindo for repayment of US$126m.
  2. Aperchance obtained an ex parte worldwide Mareva injunction against PT Makindo, which was later set aside.
  3. Aperchance placed advertisements in Indonesian newspapers misrepresenting the status of the Mareva injunction.
  4. PT Makindo claimed the advertisements were a blatant disregard and willful disobedience of the court order.
  5. The High Court dismissed PT Makindo's application to cite Aperchance for contempt of court.
  6. The advertisements were placed in response to advertisements placed by PT Makindo claiming that Aperchance's claim had been dismissed on the merits.

5. Formal Citations

  1. PT Makindo (formerly known as PT Makindo TBK) v Aperchance Co Ltd and others, Civil Appeal No 137 of 2010, [2011] SGCA 19
  2. PT Makindo (formerly known as PT Makindo TBK) v Aperchance Co Ltd and others, , [2010] 4 SLR 954

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Aperchance Co Ltd commenced Suit No 1149 of 2003 against PT Makindo and others for repayment of US$126m.
Aperchance Co Ltd obtained an ex parte worldwide Mareva injunction against PT Makindo.
The High Court set aside the worldwide Mareva injunction.
The 1st Respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the Defendants in Suit 1149/2003 and to serve the court order on all parties who had earlier been notified of the worldwide Mareva injunction.
The 1st Respondent informed all the relevant parties of the setting aside of the worldwide Mareva injunction.
The 1st Respondent paid the costs of the Defendants in Suit 1149/2003.
PT Makindo placed advertisements in Indonesian newspapers.
PT Makindo placed advertisements in Indonesian newspapers.
Aperchance Co Ltd placed an advertisement in five major Indonesian newspapers.
Aperchance Co Ltd placed an advertisement in five major Indonesian newspapers.
PT Makindo's solicitors wrote to each of the Respondents protesting against the publication of the Advertisements.
PT Makindo's solicitors wrote to each of the Respondents protesting against the publication of the Advertisements.
PT Makindo applied, ex parte, in Originating Summons No 190 of 2010 for leave of court to commence committal proceedings against the Respondents for contempt of court. Leave was granted.
Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with costs.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Contempt of Court
    • Outcome: The court held that misrepresentation of a court order after proceedings have ended does not constitute contempt of court.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Misrepresentation of court order
      • Interference with administration of justice

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Committal Proceedings

9. Cause of Actions

  • Contempt of Court

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Banking
  • Investment

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
PT Makindo (formerly known as PT Makindo TBK) v Aperchance Co Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2010] 4 SLR 954SingaporeCited as the decision from which the appeal arose.
Dunn v Bevan; Brodie v BevanChancery DivisionYes[1922] 1 Ch 276England and WalesCited for the principle that misrepresentation of a judgment after proceedings have ended does not constitute contempt of court, and the remedy lies in defamation.
Re Bineet Kumar SinghSupreme Court of IndiaYesAIR 2001 SC 2018IndiaCited by the appellant to argue that the utilisation of a fabricated court order amounts to contempt of court; distinguished by the court.
Tobacco Institute of Australia Limited v Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations Inc (No 2)Federal Court of AustraliaYes(1993) 41 FCR 89AustraliaCited by the appellant regarding misrepresentation of a court's decision; distinguished by the court as relating to extant proceedings.
R v ParkeKing's Bench DivisionYes[1903] 2 KB 432England and WalesCited for the principle that it is not possible to poison the fountain of justice when the stream has ceased.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Contempt of court
  • Mareva injunction
  • Misrepresentation
  • Administration of justice
  • Defamation

15.2 Keywords

  • Contempt of court
  • Mareva injunction
  • Misrepresentation
  • PT Makindo
  • Aperchance Co Ltd

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Contempt of Court75
Mareva Injunctions60
Commercial Disputes50
Litigation40
Fabricating court order30
Defamation30
Misrepresentation25
Asset Recovery20
Contract Law20
Cannabis Law20

16. Subjects

  • Contempt of Court
  • Civil Litigation