Aurol Anthony Sabastian v Sembcorp Marine Ltd: Contempt of Court & Interim Sealing Order Breach
Aurol Anthony Sabastian appealed against his conviction and sentence for contempt of court, after allegedly breaching an interim sealing order obtained by Sembcorp Marine Ltd (SCM) in relation to confidential information in a related suit. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the interim sealing order ambiguous and that SCM should have consulted the Attorney-General before commencing committal proceedings. The court did not award costs to Aurol, citing his reprehensible conduct.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding Aurol Anthony Sabastian's contempt conviction for breaching an interim sealing order. The court examined the order's ambiguity and purpose.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aurol Anthony Sabastian | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| Sembcorp Marine Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- SCM filed Suit 351 against PPLH and E-Interface Holdings Limited regarding pre-emption rights.
- Aurol was a director of Baker, PPLH, and PPLS at the material time.
- Wong's 4th affidavit contained confidential information about SCM's foreign exchange hedging policies.
- SCM filed SUM 5659 seeking a sealing order for Wong's 4th affidavit.
- The AR granted an interim sealing order on 6 December 2010.
- Aurol emailed a copy of SUM 5659 and Wong’s 5th affidavit to Raj, a journalist, on 10 December 2010.
- An article was published in Today on 13 December 2010 detailing the fact that SUM 5659 had been filed and setting out the reasons for the application.
5. Formal Citations
- Aurol Anthony Sabastian v Sembcorp Marine Ltd, Civil Appeal No 71 of 2012, [2013] SGCA 5
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Wong's 4th affidavit filed | |
| SCM filed Summons 5659 of 2010 | |
| Wong's 5th affidavit filed | |
| Interim sealing order granted | |
| Aurol emailed SUM 5659 and Wong’s 5th affidavit to Raj | |
| Today article published | |
| AR ordered Mediacorp to reveal its source | |
| High Court upheld order for Mediacorp to reveal its source | |
| Aurol wrote to the High Court and SCM to apologize | |
| SCM commenced committal proceedings against Aurol | |
| Court granted leave for committal proceedings | |
| SCM filed Summons 2861 of 2011 | |
| Judge issued judgment finding Aurol guilty of contempt | |
| Submissions on sentence heard | |
| Judge sentenced Aurol to five days’ imprisonment | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Interim Sealing Order
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal found the interim sealing order ambiguous and ruled that Aurol ought not to have been found guilty of criminal contempt in respect of his disclosure of Wong's 5th affidavit. As to his disclosure of the summons, this was technically a violation but did not carry a real risk of interference with the administration of justice.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Ambiguity of order terms
- Disclosure of sealed documents
- Role of Attorney-General in Criminal Contempt Proceedings
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that SCM ought to have first consulted the Attorney-General before commencing committal proceedings against Aurol for criminal contempt.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Need for consultation
- Private prosecution
8. Remedies Sought
- Committal to Prison
9. Cause of Actions
- Contempt of Court
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Media
- Legal
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sembcorp Marine Ltd v Aurol Anthony Sabastian | High Court | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 645 | Singapore | The decision from which this appeal arose, finding Aurol guilty of contempt. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 239 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of Article 35(8) of the Constitution regarding the Attorney-General's prosecutorial powers. |
| Public Prosecutor v Norzian bin Bintat | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 105 | Singapore | Cited to support the proposition that the Attorney-General does not have the sole discretion to institute or conduct criminal proceedings. |
| Attorney-General v Tee Kok Boon | High Court | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 412 | Singapore | Cited to support the proposition that Article 35(8) of the Constitution does not preclude others from instituting criminal proceedings as may be prescribed by written law. |
| Cheng William v Loo Ngee Long Edmund | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 626 | Singapore | Cited for the rationale behind the Public Prosecutor's power to take over conduct of prosecution. |
| Attorney General v Times Newspapers Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1974] AC 273 | England | Cited for the principle that anyone who thinks that a criminal contempt of court has been committed should place the facts before the Attorney-General. |
| Dobson and another v Hastings and others | Chancery Division | Yes | [1992] Ch 394 | England | Cited regarding the competence of applicants in committal motions and the Attorney-General's role. |
| Young v United States ex rel Vuitton et Fils, SA | Supreme Court of the United States | Yes | (1987) 481 US 787 | United States | Cited for the principle that a person charged with contempt has a right to a disinterested prosecutor. |
| Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd v Karaha Bodas Co LLC and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 518 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the purpose of a court order depends on the precise terms of that order itself and that the court is not seeking to vindicate its own dignity or the self-esteem of judges but to safeguard the integrity of legal proceedings. |
| Attorney General v Punch Ltd and Another | House of Lords | Yes | [2003] 1 AC 1046 | England | Cited for the principle that third parties are required to respect the court's determination as expressed in the court's order. |
| Attorney General v Times Newspapers Ltd and Another | House of Lords | Yes | [1992] 1 AC 191 | England | Cited for the principle that where there is room for genuine doubt about what the court's purpose is, then the party charged with contempt is likely to escape liability. |
| Seaward v Paterson | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1897] 1 Ch 545 | England | Cited for the principle that the court acts upon its own jurisdiction and upon its own authority in punishing conduct which obstructs the course of justice. |
| Con-Mech (Engineers) Ltd v Amalgamated Union of Engineering Works (Engineering Section) | National Industrial Relations Court | Yes | [1973] ICR 620 | England | Cited for the principle that the High Court is concerned to exercise its power of punishment for contempt in the public interest. |
| Churchman v Joint Shop Stewards’ Committee of the Workers of the Port of London | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1972] 1 WLR 1094 | England | Cited for the principle that the court may be entitled, on sufficient information being brought before it, to act on its own initiative in sending a contemnor to prison. |
| Shadrake Alan v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 778 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if the nature of the contempt was such that there is no real likelihood that any risk to the public interest would materialise, the court will be slow to inflict punishment. |
| In re Bramblevale Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1970] Ch 128 | England | Cited for the principle that a contempt of court is an offence of a criminal character and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Lee Seng Choon Ronnie v Singapore Island Country Club | High Court | Yes | [1993] 1 SLR(R) 557 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the power to award costs is fundamentally and essentially one that is discretionary. |
| Soon Peng Yam and another (trustees of the Chinese Swimming Club) v Maimon bte Ahmad | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR(R) 279 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the overriding concern of the court must be to exercise its discretion to achieve the fairest allocation of costs. |
| Ng Eng Ghee and others v Mamata Kapildev Dave and others (Horizon Partners Pte Ltd, intervener) and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 155 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the overriding concern of the court must be to exercise its discretion to achieve the fairest allocation of costs. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore | Singapore |
| Penal Code | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Interim Sealing Order
- Contempt of Court
- Confidential Information
- Committal Proceedings
- Affidavit
- Summons
- Public Prosecutor
- Administration of Justice
15.2 Keywords
- Contempt
- Sealing Order
- Attorney-General
- Criminal Procedure
- Injunction
- Singapore
- Court of Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Contempt of Court | 75 |
| Civil Procedure | 60 |
| Evidence Law | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Contempt of Court
- Civil Procedure
- Media Law