BMP v BMQ: Contempt of Court for Breach of Mareva Injunction

In a divorce proceeding between BMP (Plaintiff) and BMQ (Defendant), the High Court of Singapore heard appeals against a District Judge's decision regarding leave to apply for an order of committal for contempt of court. The Plaintiff alleged the Defendant breached a Mareva injunction by dealing with matrimonial assets. The High Court dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal and allowed the Defendant's appeal, setting aside the order granting leave to apply for committal, finding the Plaintiff's statement of allegations to be insufficiently particularized.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's appeal dismissed; Defendant's appeal allowed. The orders granting leave to the Plaintiff to apply for committal against the Defendant with respect to the Shares and the Insurance Policy were set aside.

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

High Court decision regarding contempt of court proceedings for alleged breaches of a Mareva injunction in a divorce case. Appeals against orders granting leave for committal were dismissed.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
BMPPlaintiff, RespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
BMQDefendant, AppellantIndividualAppeal AllowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lionel YeeJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Choo Zheng XiPeter Low LLC
Peter Cuthbert LowPeter Low LLC
Khoo Boo Teck RandolphDrew & Napier LLC
Anusha PrabhakaranDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff filed for divorce and applied for a Mareva injunction on January 3, 2011.
  2. The Mareva injunction was granted on January 4, 2011, restraining the Defendant from dealing with certain assets.
  3. Plaintiff applied for leave to apply for an order of committal against the Defendant on August 8, 2011.
  4. The District Judge granted leave to the Plaintiff to apply for committal on August 15, 2011.
  5. Defendant filed an application to strike out the committal application and set aside the order granting leave on November 15, 2011.
  6. The District Judge set aside part of the order granting leave but also granted leave in certain respects on November 2, 2012.
  7. Both parties filed appeals against the District Judge's orders.
  8. The Defendant allegedly disposed of shares in [E] Pte Ltd and insurance monies in breach of the Mareva injunction.

5. Formal Citations

  1. BMP v BMQ and another appeal, Divorce No 5 of 2011(Registrar's Appeal Subordinate Courts Nos 193 and 194 of 2012), [2013] SGHC 263

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff filed for divorce and applied ex parte for a Mareva injunction.
Plaintiff was granted a Mareva injunction.
Plaintiff took out an ex parte application for leave to apply for an order of committal against the Defendant.
District judge granted leave to the Plaintiff to apply for committal.
Defendant filed an application to strike out the committal application and set aside the order granting leave.
District Judge set aside part of the order granting leave but also granted leave in certain respects.
Defendant filed an appeal against the District Judge's orders.
Plaintiff filed an appeal against the District Judge's orders.
District Judge released his grounds of decision.
High Court heard the appeals.
Second hearing at the High Court.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Contempt of Court
    • Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiff's statement of allegations was insufficiently particularized, and therefore the Defendant was not in contempt of court.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Breach of Mareva Injunction
      • Sufficiency of Particulars in O 52 r 2(2) Statement
      • Proof of Service of Court Order
    • Related Cases:
      • [2007] 2 SLR(R) 518
  2. Leave to Apply for Committal
    • Outcome: The court held that the test of sufficient particularity of the O 52 r 2(2) statement should be strictly enforced at the leave stage.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Threshold for Granting Leave
      • Requirements for O 52 r 2(2) Statement
      • Need to Prove Service at Ex Parte Hearing

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Order of Committal

9. Cause of Actions

  • Contempt of Court

10. Practice Areas

  • Family Litigation
  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd v Karaha Bodas Co LLC and othersSingapore Court of AppealYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 518SingaporeCited for the principle that the court's power to compel obedience is founded on vindicating rights and upholding the administration of justice.
Neo Mei Lan Helena v Long Melvin Anthony & AnotherSingapore District CourtYes[2000] SGDC 28SingaporeCited regarding whether a judge can disturb the findings of a judge who granted an ex parte order.
Ang Boon Chye and another v Ang Tin YongHigh CourtYes[2011] SGHC 124SingaporeCited for examples of exceptional circumstances where a defendant can object to the granting of leave to commence committal proceedings.
Wee Choo Keong v MBf Holdings Bhd & Anor and another appealMalaysian CourtYes[1993] 2 MLJ 217MalaysiaCited for the principle that leave to issue committal proceedings will be granted if a prima facie case of contempt has been made out.
Ronald Philip Devereux & Anor v Majlis Perbandaran Langkawi Bandaraya Pelancongan & OrsMalaysian CourtYes[2012] 4 MLJ 665MalaysiaCited for the principle that leave to issue committal proceedings will be granted if a prima facie case of contempt has been made out.
Woodsville Sdn Bhd v Tien Ik Enterprises Sdn Bhd & OrsMalaysian CourtYes[2009] 3 MLJ 191MalaysiaCited for the principle that leave to issue committal proceedings will be granted if a prima facie case of contempt has been made out.
Foo Khoon Long v Foo Khoon WongMalaysian CourtYes[2009] 9 MLJ 441MalaysiaCited for the principle that at the time when the court had granted leave, there was only a prima facie case of contempt.
Kirk v WaltonEnglish CourtYes[2009] 1 All ER 257England and WalesCited with approval for the principles applicable when permission is sought to bring committal proceedings for making false statements of truth.
Barnes (t/a Pool Motors) v SeabrookEnglish High CourtYes[2010] EWHC 1849 (Admin)England and WalesCited with approval for the principles applicable when permission is sought to bring committal proceedings for making false statements of truth.
Berry Piling Systems Ltd v Sheer Projects LtdEnglish High CourtYes[2013] EWHC 347 (TCC)England and WalesCited with approval for the principles applicable when permission is sought to bring committal proceedings for making false statements of truth.
Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Plc v KoskyEnglish High CourtYes[2013] EWHC 835 (QB)England and WalesCited with approval for the principles applicable when permission is sought to bring committal proceedings for making false statements of truth.
Malgar Ltd v RE Leach (Engineering) LtdEnglish CourtYes[2000] FSR 393England and WalesDrew a distinction between committal proceedings in respect of a breach of an injunction and committal proceedings brought under r 32.14 of the English CPR.
Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment Inc (t/a Sony Computer Entertainment Inc) v Ball & OrsEnglish High CourtYes[2004] EWHC 1192 (Ch)England and WalesCited for the principle that permission to bring committal proceedings for making false statements of truth under the English CPR will be granted if there is shown, among other things, a strong prima facie case and not just a prima facie case.
Tan Sri G Darshan Singh v Tetuan Azam Lim & PangMalaysian Court of AppealYes[2013] 5 MLJ 541MalaysiaCited for the principle that the leave procedure should not be used as a tool for oppression and thus the court will require full and frank disclosure from the applicant and the proper procedure to be followed before it will grant leave to commence committal proceedings.
Summit Holdings Ltd and another v Business Software AllianceSingapore Court of AppealYes[1999] 2 SLR(R) 592SingaporeCited for the principle that the purpose of the O 52 r 2(2) statement is to set out distinctly the grounds which the applicants are proceeding upon and to allow the respondents to have the opportunity of answering them.
Syarikat M Mohamed v Mahindapal Singh & OrsMalaysian CourtYes[1991] 2 MLJ 112MalaysiaCited for the principle that an O 52 r 2(2) statement must contain enough information with sufficient particularity to enable the person alleged to be in contempt to meet the charge.
Tan Sri Dato’ (Dr) Rozali Ismail & Ors v Lim Pang Cheong @ George Lim & OrsMalaysian CourtYes[2012] 3 MLJ 458MalaysiaCited for the principle that any deficiencies in an O 52 r 2(2) statement cannot be cured by references to other documents such as the accompanying affidavit verifying the facts relied upon.
The New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd & Ors v Ahirudin bin AttanMalaysian CourtYes[2008] 1 MLJ 814MalaysiaCited for the principle that any deficiencies in an O 52 r 2(2) statement cannot be cured by explanations by way of submissions from counsel from the bar, either orally or in writing.
Harmsworth v HarmsworthEnglish Court of AppealYes[1987] 1 WLR 1676England and WalesCited for the test of whether the notice gives the person alleged to be in contempt enough information to enable him to meet the charge.
Chiltern District Council v KeaneEnglish Court of AppealYes[1985] 1 WLR 619England and WalesCited for the test of whether the notice gives the person alleged to be in contempt enough information to enable him to meet the charge.
Jelson (Estates) Ltd v HarveyEnglish Court of AppealYes[1983] 1 WLR 1401England and WalesCited for the principle that if an application for leave to apply for an order of committal or an application for an order of committal is dismissed on the ground that the O 52 r 2(2) statement does not set out the grounds of the committal application by specifying the breaches complained of, the applicant is not precluded from bringing fresh committal proceedings founded on the same contempt in compliance with the proper procedure.
Arthur Lee Meng Kwang v Faber Merlin Malaysia Bhd & OrsMalaysian CourtYes[1986] 2 MLJ 193MalaysiaCited for the principle that a distinction should be drawn between a failure to observe procedural safeguards laid down in O 52 and mere technical irregularities.
Re B (JA) (An Infant)English CourtYes[1965] 1 Ch 1112England and WalesCited for the principle that committal is a very serious matter and the courts must proceed very carefully before they make an order to commit to prison.
Chou Yi Feng v Chou Yi Chen and othersHong Kong High CourtYes[2002] HCA No 4393 of 2001Hong KongCited for the principle that the statement presented to the court in support of an ex parte application for leave to commit should refer to personal service on the contemnor.
Re M (Minors) (Access: Contempt: Committal)English CourtYes[1991] 1 FLR 355England and WalesCited for the principle that committal orders in family cases were remedies of very last resort.
Tan Beow Hiong v Tan Boon AikSingapore Court of AppealYes[2010] 4 SLR 870SingaporeCited for the principle that committal orders in family cases were remedies of very last resort.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 52 r 2 of the Rules of Court
O 52 r 3 of the Rules of Court
O 32 r 6 of the Rules of Court
O 52 r 5(3) of the Rules of Court
O 45 r 7(2) of the Rules of Court
O 45 rr 7(6)–(7) of the Rules of Court
O 2 of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Mareva Injunction
  • Contempt of Court
  • Order of Committal
  • Leave to Apply
  • O 52 r 2(2) Statement
  • Prima Facie Case
  • Sufficient Particularity
  • Personal Service
  • Matrimonial Property
  • Shares
  • Insurance Policy

15.2 Keywords

  • Mareva Injunction
  • Contempt of Court
  • Committal Proceedings
  • Family Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Mareva Injunction95
Divorce90
Matrimonial Assets85
Family Law80
Injunctions75
Contempt of Court70
Civil Procedure60
Evidence50
Litigation40
Estoppel30

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Family Law
  • Contempt of Court
  • Injunctions