Sembcorp Marine Ltd v Aurol Anthony Sabastian: Contempt of Court for Breaching Sealing Order

Sembcorp Marine Ltd ("SCM") applied for an order to commit Anthony Sabastian Aurol ("Mr. Aurol") for contempt of court, alleging a breach of an interim sealing order. The High Court of Singapore, presided over by Quentin Loh J, found Mr. Aurol guilty of contempt. The court determined that Mr. Aurol deliberately breached the sealing order by disclosing confidential documents to a journalist, thereby interfering with the administration of justice. SCM had sued PPL Holdings Pte Ltd and E-Interface Holdings Limited in Suit 351, and the sealing order pertained to documents filed in that suit.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Mr. Aurol found guilty of contempt of court.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Sembcorp Marine sought committal of Aurol Anthony Sabastian for contempt of court for breaching an interim sealing order. The High Court found Aurol guilty of contempt.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Aurol Anthony SabastianRespondentIndividualRespondent found guilty of contemptLost
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 an interim sealing order for a summons and an affidavit.
  2. The Assistant Registrar granted the interim sealing order.
  3. Mr. Aurol sent the sealed documents to a journalist, Mr. Raj.
  4. Mr. Raj published an article based on the documents.
  5. SCM asked Mediacorp to disclose its source of the leak.
  6. Mr. Aurol identified himself as the source after Mediacorp was ordered to reveal it.
  7. SCM challenged the sincerity of Mr. Aurol’s apology and sought leave to apply for an order for committal.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Sembcorp Marine Ltd v Aurol Anthony Sabastian, Originating Summons No 465 of 2011 (Summons No 2861 of 2011), [2012] SGHC 52
  2. Sembcorp Marine Ltd v Aurol Anthony Sabastian, Civil Appeal No 71 of 2012, [2013] SGCA 5

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Suit 351 filed by SCM and PPLS against PPLH and E-Interface
SCM terminated Mr. Aurol as an executive
Summons No 4837 of 2010 taken out by defendants in Suit 351
SCM filed Summons 5659
SCM orally applied for an interim order to seal the Summons and Wong’s 5th Affidavit
Assistant Registrar granted the interim sealing order
Mr. Aurol sent Wong’s 5th Affidavit and Summons 5659 to Mr. Conrad Jayaraj
Mr. Raj published an article based on these documents
SCM asked Mediacorp Press Ltd to disclose its source of the leak of information
SCM commenced Originating Summons No 74 against Mediacorp
AR Tan Wen Hsien ordered Mediacorp to reveal its source
AR Tan’s order was upheld on appeal by Judith Prakash J
Mediacorp prepared to reveal its source, publishing an article to this effect
Mr. Aurol identified himself as the source of the leak and apologised to the Court and SCM for the breach
Mediacorp destroyed all documents related to this case
SCM filed Originating Summons No 465
Leave was granted by me on 30 June 2011
SCM filed Summons 2861
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Court Order
    • Outcome: The court found that Mr. Aurol breached the interim sealing order.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Deliberate disobedience of court order
      • Interference with administration of justice
  2. Contempt of Court
    • Outcome: The court found Mr. Aurol guilty of contempt of court.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Interference with the administration of justice
      • Subversion of court order

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Order for committal to prison

9. Cause of Actions

  • Contempt of Court

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • Shipping
  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Tang Kin Fei and others v Chang Benety and othersHigh CourtYes[2011] 1 SLR 586SingaporeCited to show that the resolutions could have been made for the collateral purpose of trying to find fault with certain persons at the instigation of a shareholder who was unhappy with Yangzijiang’s intended purchase.
Chang Benety and others v Tang Kin Fei and othersCourt of AppealYes[2012] 1 SLR 274SingaporeCited as evidence of SCM’s intention to make use of the inquorate meetings to obtain a tactical advantage over PPLH.
You Xin v Public Prosecutor and another appealHigh CourtYes[2007] 4 SLR(R) 17SingaporeCited for the proposition that contempt can be divided into two broad categories, viz, contempt by interference and contempt by disobedience.
Attorney-General v Times Newspapers LtdHouse of LordsYes[1974] AC 273United KingdomCited for the principle that the public must have faith in the administration of justice and that once a dispute has been submitted to a court of law, there will be no usurpation by any other person or body of the function of the court to decide that dispute according to the law.
Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd v Karaha Bodas Co LLC and othersCourt of AppealYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 518SingaporeCited for the burden of proof required in contempt cases and the elements that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Attorney-General v Newspaper Publishing Plc and othersCourt of AppealYes[1988] 1 Ch 333United KingdomCited for the re-classification of contempt.
Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd and anotherHouse of LordsYes[1992] 1 AC 191United KingdomCited for the distinction between civil and criminal contempt.
Attorney General v Punch Ltd and anotherHouse of LordsYes[2003] 1 AC 1046United KingdomCited 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.
Z Ltd v A-Z and AA-LLQueen's BenchYes[1982] 1 QB 558United KingdomCited for the principle that any injunction has an “immediate effect on every asset of the defendant covered by the injunction”.
Attorney-General v Newspaper Publishing Plc and othersCourt of AppealYes[1997] 1 WLR 926United KingdomCited for the definition of technical breach.
Her Majesty’s Attorney General v Michael John PellingHigh CourtYes[2005] EWHC 414England and WalesCited for the definition of technical breach.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of CourtSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Interim sealing order
  • Contempt of court
  • Breach of confidentiality
  • Administration of justice
  • Summons
  • Affidavit
  • Committal
  • Disclosure
  • Confidential information

15.2 Keywords

  • Contempt
  • Sealing Order
  • Sembcorp Marine
  • Aurol Anthony Sabastian
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Contempt of Court90
Civil Procedure50
Evidence Law30

16. Subjects

  • Contempt of Court
  • Civil Procedure
  • Injunctions