Global Distressed Alpha Fund I v PT Bakrie: Contempt of Court for Failure to Comply with Examination Order

The Singapore High Court heard an application by Global Distressed Alpha Fund I Ltd Partnership (“the Plaintiff”) for Robertus Bismarka Kurniawan (“Kurniawan”), the Ex-President Commissioner and Ex-Chairman of the Supervisory Board of PT Barkrie Investindo (“the Defendant”), to stand committed to prison and/or fined and for a Warrant for Arrest to be issued for refusing to comply with an order made by the Assistant Registrar (“AR”) on 14 June 2012 for, inter alia, the examination of Kurniawan as an ex-officer of the Defendant in its capacity as a judgment debtor. The court allowed the application, finding Kurniawan in contempt of court for deliberately breaching the order to attend court for examination and to respond to a questionnaire.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application allowed; Robertus Bismarka Kurniawan to be committed to prison for seven days and a Warrant of Arrest to be issued, both suspended pending appeal.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court found Robertus Kurniawan in contempt for failing to comply with an order to appear for examination regarding PT Bakrie Investindo's assets.

1.7 Decision Date

13 May 2013

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
PT Bakrie Investindo	Defendant	Corporation	Application for Committal Granted	Lost	Suresh Damodara of Damodara Hazra LLP
Global Distressed Alpha Fund I Ltd Partnership	Plaintiff	Partnership	Application Allowed	Won	Emmanuel Duncan Chua of Drew & Napier LLC Hri Kumar Nair of Drew & Napier LLC James Low of Drew & Napier LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Lai Siu Chiu	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Suresh Damodara	Damodara Hazra LLP
Emmanuel Duncan Chua	Drew & Napier LLC
Hri Kumar Nair	Drew & Napier LLC
James Low	Drew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

Plaintiff sought to enforce a UK judgment against the Defendant in Singapore.
Kurniawan, as Ex-President Commissioner and Ex-Chairman of the Supervisory Board of the Defendant, was ordered to attend court for examination as a judgment debtor.
Kurniawan failed to attend multiple EJD Hearings despite being ordered to do so.
Kurniawan claimed his absence was due to various engagements and reliance on an automatic stay, which the court rejected.
The court found Kurniawan's reasons for not attending the hearings unacceptable and a deliberate breach of the EJD Order.
Kurniawan did not obtain a stay order pending the determination of the Setting Aside Appeals.
Kurniawan was legally represented at all material times, and was advised on the possible consequences of his breaches.

5. Formal Citations

Global Distressed Alpha Fund I Ltd Partnership v PT Bakrie Investindo, Originating Summons No 595 of 2011 (Summons No 957 of 2013), [2013] SGHC 105

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1996-01-01	Defendant’s subsidiary issued US$50m worth of loan notes.
1999-01-01	Issuer defaulted on the payment of sums due under the Notes.
2002-03-06	Commercial Court of the Central Jakarta District Court ratified the Composition Plan.
2009-01-01	Plaintiff bought US$2m worth of the Notes.
2011-02-17	Plaintiff obtained final judgment in UK.
2011-06-10	UK High Court issued a Default Costs Certificate.
2011-07-18	Plaintiff filed Originating Summons No 595 of 2011.
2011-07-18	The AR granted an order in terms of the OS.
2011-08-04	The Registration Order was served on the Defendant in Indonesia.
2012-01-02	Kurniawan resigned as the President Commissioner and Chairman of the Supervisory Board of the Defendant.
2012-06-14	The AR made the EJD Order.
2012-06-16	Kurniawan was personally served with the EJD Order.
2012-07-03	1st EJD Hearing.
2012-08-14	2nd EJD Hearing.
2012-08-31	The Defendant filed an application to set aside the Registration Order and the EJD Order in Summons No 4443 of 2012.
2012-09-04	3rd EJD Hearing.
2012-09-14	The AR heard the 1st Setting Aside Application.
2012-09-24	The AR heard the 1st and 2nd Setting Aside Application and dismissed both.
2012-09-25	The Defendant filed Registrar’s Appeal No 392 of 2012 and Registrar’s Appeal No 393 of 2012.
2012-10-11	Woo Bih Li J heard the Setting Aside RAs.
2012-10-16	4th EJD Hearing.
2012-10-31	Woo J dismissed the Setting Aside RAs.
2012-11-05	The Defendant filed Civil Appeal No 144 of 2012 and Civil Appeal No 145 of 2012 against Woo J’s decision in the Setting Aside RAs.
2012-11-06	Adjourned 4th EJD Hearing.
2012-11-21	The AR dismissed the Stay Application and re-fixed the EJD to 6 December 2012.
2012-11-28	The Defendant filed Registrar’s Appeal No 483 of 2012 against the AR’s decision.
2012-12-06	5th EJD Hearing.
2012-12-17	Tay Yong Kwang J heard the Stay RA and dismissed it.
2013-01-03	The Defendant filed Civil Appeal No 1 of 2013 against Tay J’s decision.
2013-01-08	6th EJD Hearing.
2013-01-10	The Defendant took out applications to expedite and consolidate the Setting Aside Appeals and the Stay Appeal.
2013-01-18	The Plaintiff filed an application seeking, inter alia, leave to apply for an order of committal against Kurniawan.
2013-01-22	7th EJD Hearing.
2013-01-25	Vinodh Coomaraswamy JC heard the Consolidation Applications.
2013-02-07	This court heard the Leave Application on an ex-parte basis.
2013-02-08	The Defendant’s solicitors sent a fax to the Plaintiff’s solicitors confirming that it had instructions to accept service of the Committal Documents.
2013-02-16	The Plaintiff’s solicitors effected substituted service of the Committal Documents by advertisement in The Jakarta Post.
2013-02-19	8th EJD Hearing.
2013-02-22	The Plaintiff’s solicitors also sent a physical copy of the Committal Documents to Kurniawan’s address.
2013-03-20	9th EJD Hearing.
2013-03-25	The substantive committal application was subsequently heard and granted by this court.
2013-04-10	EJD Hearing.
2013-05-14	Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

Contempt of Court
- Outcome: The court found that Kurniawan had deliberately breached Order 1 and Order 3 of the EJD Order and was therefore guilty of contempt of court.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Deliberate breach of court order
  - Failure to attend court hearing
  - Failure to comply with examination order
- Related Cases:
  - [2013] 2 SLR 246
  - [2005] 3 SLR(R) 60
  - [1999] 2 SLR(R) 592
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
- Outcome: The court considered the EJD Order in the context of enforcing a UK judgment.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Examination of judgment debtor

8. Remedies Sought

Committal to Prison
Fine
Warrant of Arrest

9. Cause of Actions

Contempt of Court

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Civil Litigation

11. Industries

Finance
Investment

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Global Distressed Alpha Fund I Limited Partnership v PT Bakrie Investindo	High Court	Yes	[2013] 2 SLR 228	Singapore	Cited for the decision on the Setting Aside RAs.
OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP and others v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2005] 3 SLR(R) 60	Singapore	Cited for the principle that reasons for disobedience are not relevant in establishing liability for civil contempt, but are relevant at the sentencing stage.
Summit Holdings Ltd and another v Business Software Alliance	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 2 SLR(R) 592	Singapore	Cited for the principle that reasons for disobedience are not relevant in establishing liability for civil contempt, but are relevant at the sentencing stage.
Hadkinson v Hadkinson	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1952] P 285	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that every person against whom an order is made by a court of competent jurisdiction has a plain and unqualified obligation to obey it unless and until that order is discharged.
Global Distressed Alpha Fund I Limited Partnership v PT Bakrie Investindo	High Court	Yes	[2013] SGHC 30	Singapore	Cited for the decision on the Stay RA.
Sembcorp Marine Ltd v Aurol Anthony Sabastian	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 1 SLR 245	Singapore	Cited for the principle that committal to prison is usually a measure of last resort.
Lee Shieh-Peen Clement and another v Ho Chin Nguang and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 4 SLR 801	Singapore	Cited for the principle that committal to prison is usually a measure of last resort.
Monex Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v E-Clearing (Singapore) Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] 4 SLR 1169	Singapore	Cited for the principle that committal to prison is usually a measure of last resort.
Aurol Anthony Sabastian v Sembcorp Marine Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 2 SLR 246	Singapore	Cited for the distinction between civil and criminal contempt.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)
O 67 r 7 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)
O 45 r 7(4) of the Rules of Court
O 67 r 10(2) of the Rules of Court
O 52 r 3(4) of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Cap 264, 1985 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Examination of Judgment Debtor
EJD Order
Contempt of Court
Committal Proceedings
Warrant of Arrest
Setting Aside Application
Stay Application
Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act

15.2 Keywords

Contempt
Enforcement
Judgment
Examination
Singapore
Court Order

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Contempt of Court	90
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments	80
Judgments and Orders	75
Examination of judgment debtor	70
Civil Procedure	60
Asset Recovery	50

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Contempt of Court
Enforcement of Judgments