Sembcorp Marine Ltd v Aurol Anthony Sabastian: Contempt of Court & Sealing Order Breach

In Sembcorp Marine Ltd v Aurol Anthony Sabastian, the High Court of Singapore, with Quentin Loh J presiding on 28 September 2012, sentenced Mr. Aurol to 5 days in prison for contempt of court. This followed an earlier judgment where Mr. Aurol was found guilty of breaching a sealing order by disclosing sealed documents to a journalist. The court rejected Mr. Aurol's applications to adduce further evidence and to make further arguments on a point of law, confirming the conviction and proceeding to sentencing.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Mr. Aurol was sentenced to 5 days imprisonment for contempt of court.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Mr. Aurol was found guilty of contempt for breaching a sealing order by leaking documents to the press. He was sentenced to 5 days in prison.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Aurol Anthony SabastianRespondentIndividualRespondent SentencedLost
Sembcorp Marine LtdApplicantCorporationJudgment for ApplicantWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Quentin LohJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
George LimWee, Tay & Lim LLP
Foo Say TunWee, Tay & Lim LLP
Davinder SinghDrew & Napier LLC
Pardeep Singh KhosaDrew & Napier LLC
Vishal HarnalDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. SCM sought to seal Wong’s 4th Affidavit in Suit No. 315 of 2010.
  2. An interim sealing order was issued to keep the Summons and Wong’s 5th Affidavit sealed.
  3. Mr. Aurol sent the Summons and Wong’s 5th Affidavit to Mr. Raj, a journalist.
  4. Mr. Raj published an article based on the documents, breaching the sealing order.
  5. Mr. Aurol initially did not disclose that he was the source of the leak.
  6. Mr. Aurol applied to adduce further evidence from Mr. Raj, which was disallowed.
  7. Mr. Aurol argued that the sealing order was different from a non-disclosure order.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Sembcorp Marine Ltd v Aurol Anthony Sabastian, Originating Summons No 465 of 2011/E (Summons No 1622 of 2012/M), [2012] SGHC 195

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Mr. Raj telephoned Mr. Aurol.
TODAY Newspaper published an article entitled “SembMarine Boss Rushes To Stop Affidavit Leak”.
SCM went to court for an order that TODAY divulges its source for the article.
Mr. Aurol was convicted for contempt of court.
Mr. Aurol filed an affidavit in support of his application to adduce further evidence.
Applications for leave to adduce further evidence and leave to make further argument were heard in chambers.
Decision given disallowing the application for leave to adduce further evidence but allowing the application to make further arguments.
Further arguments were heard in open court.
Mr. Aurol was sentenced to 5 days in prison.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Contempt of Court
    • Outcome: The court found Mr. Aurol guilty of contempt of court for breaching the sealing order.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Breach of Sealing Order
      • Interference with Administration of Justice
  2. Admissibility of Further Evidence
    • Outcome: The court disallowed the application to adduce further evidence.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Reasonable Diligence
      • Relevance of Evidence
      • Credibility of Evidence
  3. Interpretation of Sealing Order
    • Outcome: The court held that the sealing order was breached by disclosing the sealed documents.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Scope of Order
      • Purpose of Order
      • Distinction from Non-Disclosure Order

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Committal for Contempt of Court
  2. Imprisonment

9. Cause of Actions

  • Contempt of Court

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • Legal Services
  • Media

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Sembcorp Marine Ltd v Anthony Sabastian AurolHigh CourtYes[2012] 2 SLR 645SingaporeThe judgment refers to the earlier judgment where Mr. Aurol was found guilty of contempt of court.
Ladd v MarshallN/AYes[1954] 1 WLR 1489England and WalesCited for the conditions for admitting further evidence after a matter has been concluded.
Juma’at bin Samad v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[1993] 2 SLR(R) 327SingaporeApplied the Ladd v Marshall conditions in deciding whether to admit additional evidence in the criminal context.
Brown v Executors of the Estate of HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother & OrsN/AYes[2008] 1 WLR 2327England and WalesCited to explain what sealing means.
A-G v Guardian Newspapers Ltd & OrsN/AYes[1987] 1 WLR 1248England and WalesCited as an example of a non-disclosure order.
Attorney-General v Punch Ltd and anorHouse of LordsYes[2003] 1 AC 1046England and WalesCited for the principle that disclosure of information already in the public domain will not normally constitute contempt of court.
Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd v Karaha Bodas Co LLCCourt of AppealYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 518SingaporeCited for the principle that a party who is not directly bound by an order of court can be held liable for criminal contempt if he deliberately frustrates the purpose of that order.
Attorney-General v Times Newspapers LtdN/AYes[1992] 1 AC 191England and WalesCited for the principle that the subversion of an order of court constitutes a direct threat to the due administration of justice.
Attorney-General v Newspaper Publishing PlcCourt of AppealYes[1997] 1 WLR 926England and WalesCited to argue that the breaches were very minor as the newspaper had only reproduced two additional sentences which added very little to information already in the public domain.
Allport Alfred James v Wong Soon LanN/AYes[1992] 2 SLR(R) 100SingaporeCited for the breach of an ex parte order pursuant to ancillary proceedings.
Lee Shieh-Peen Clement v Ho Chin HguangN/AYes[2010] 4 SLR 801SingaporeCited for the principle that committal to prison is normally a measure of last resort.
Monex Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v E-Clearing (Singapore) Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2012] SGHC 189SingaporeCited for the principle that committal to prison is normally a measure of last resort.
Summit Holdings Ltd v Business Software AllianceN/AYes[1999] 2 SLR(R) 592SingaporeCited for a case of contempt by disobeying an order to return items seized under a quashed warrant.
OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP and others v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) and others (No 2)N/AYes[2005] 3 SLR(R) 60SingaporeCited for the principle that motive is not relevant in determining mens rea, it may be relevant as part of the inquiry to determine if there were any mitigating circumstances for the purposes of sentencing.
Tan Beow Hiong v Tan Boon AikN/AYes[2010] 4 SLR 870SingaporeCited for the law’s position on custodial sentences for contempt in the family context.
Precious Wishes Ltd v Sinoble Metalloy International (Pte) LtdHigh CourtYes[2000] SGHC 5SingaporeCited for the seriousness of the contemptuous act was measured by the contemnor’s deliberate disregard of a Mareva injunction for his personal benefit.
Re Tan Khee Eng JohnHigh CourtYes[1997] SGHC 115SingaporeCited for a custodial sentence was imposed when the contemnor had failed to obey a court order for appearance and failed to notify the court of his absence or reasons for absence.
Lim Meng Chai v Heng Chok KengHigh CourtYes[2001] SGHC 33SingaporeCited for a custodial sentence was imposed when the contemnor had evaded the production of trial documents and stakeholding monies entrusted to him and persistently refused to obey the court order even after contempt proceedings were instituted.
Re: Ho Kok Cheong bankruptcy No 1235 of 1987High CourtYes[1995] SGHC 121SingaporeCited for the contemnor had travelled out of Singapore on more than 300 occasions in breach of s 38(1)(c) of the Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, Rev Ed 2009) which prohibits bankrupts from travelling outside Singapore.
In Re Barrell EnterprisesN/AYes[1973] 1 WLR 19England and WalesCited for identifying two main motivating factors for imprisonment: (1) punishment for disobedience of the order of the court and (2) that of seeking to enforce the order.
Cartier International BV v Lee Hock Lee and another applicationN/AYes[1992] 3 SLR(R) 340SingaporeCited for the contemnor had breached a court order prohibiting the sale of Cartier and Rolex watches in breach of copyright over an extended period of time.
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan and Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Sales v Keith BartonSaskatchewan Court of AppealYes2001 SKCA 56CanadaThe Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruled that it would be offensive to the strong tradition of public access to seal court files and instead imposed a ban on publication until the hearing of the appeal.
Grand Union Insurance Co Ltd v Clyde & Co & OrsN/AYes[1988] HKC 464Hong KongThe order made there was a most unusual and vague order, viz, that the proceedings were to be marked “confidential” in the registry of the Hong Kong Supreme Court, and the court held that those terms were not clear enough to mean that no one could publish any information relating to the proceedings.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2005 Rev Ed)Singapore
Adoption of Children Act (Cap 4, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore
Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, Rev Ed 2009)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Sealing Order
  • Contempt of Court
  • Affidavit
  • Disclosure
  • Interim Order
  • Administration of Justice
  • Mens Rea

15.2 Keywords

  • Contempt
  • Sealing Order
  • Breach
  • Disclosure
  • Injunction
  • Singapore
  • Court Order

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Contempt of Court95
Civil Procedure50
Evidence Law40

16. Subjects

  • Contempt of Court
  • Civil Procedure
  • Legal Ethics