Au Wai Pang v Attorney-General: Contempt of Court & Court of Appeal Jurisdiction
The Singapore Court of Appeal heard Originating Summons No 1175 of 2013, an ex parte application by the Attorney-General (“the AGC”) for leave to apply for an order of committal against Au Wai Pang (“Alex Au”) for contempt of court. Originating Summons No 59 of 2014 (“OS 59/2014”) is an application by Alex Au to appear in and contest OS 1175/2013. The court dismissed the Attorney-General's application, holding that the Duty Judge did not have the power to grant an extension of time and that the Court of Appeal lacked the original jurisdiction to grant leave to commence committal proceedings for contempt of court.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Originating Summons dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Attorney-General's application for leave to commence committal proceedings against Au Wai Pang, holding it lacked jurisdiction.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Applicant | Government Agency | Application Dismissed | Lost | Tai Wei Shyong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Teo Lu Jia of Attorney-General’s Chambers Elaine Liew of Attorney-General’s Chambers Francis Ng of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Au Wai Pang | Respondent | Individual | Application Allowed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tai Wei Shyong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Teo Lu Jia | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Elaine Liew | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Francis Ng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Choo Zheng Xi | Peter Low LLC |
| Peter Low | Peter Low LLC |
4. Facts
- The Attorney-General applied for leave to commence committal proceedings against Au Wai Pang for contempt of court.
- The application was initially made ex parte to the High Court.
- The High Court granted leave for one article but not another.
- The Attorney-General then applied to the Court of Appeal after the High Court's partial refusal.
- The application to the Court of Appeal was filed late.
- A Duty Judge granted an extension of time for filing the application.
- Au Wai Pang applied to appear and contest the Attorney-General's application.
5. Formal Citations
- Au Wai Pang v Attorney-General, , [2014] SGCA 23
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Article "377 wheels come off Supreme Court’s best-laid plans" published. | |
| Article "Church sacks employee and sues government — on one ground right, on another wrong" published. | |
| Alex Au received word that the AGC intended to apply to the High Court for leave to initiate committal proceedings against him. | |
| Counsel for Alex Au sought leave to convert OS 1098/2013 into an inter partes hearing. | |
| The Judge denied the request to convert OS 1098/2013 into an inter partes hearing and granted leave to the AGC to apply for an order of committal against Alex Au in respect of the first article, but not the second. | |
| The AGC attempted to electronically file the application. | |
| The AGC re-filed the application under a different case number, namely, OS 1175/2013. | |
| The AGC appeared before the Duty Registrar to fix two summonses before the Duty Judge. | |
| Counsel for the AGC appeared before the Duty Judge, whereupon he granted orders in terms for both the application to expedite and the application for extension of time. | |
| OS 59/2014 was filed by Alex Au. | |
| This court heard OS 1175/2013 and OS 59/2014. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that it did not have the original jurisdiction to grant leave to commence committal proceedings for contempt of court.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Original jurisdiction
- Appellate jurisdiction
- Incidental appellate jurisdiction
- Related Cases:
- [2013] 3 SLR 258
- [2000] 1 AC 1
- [1992] 1 QB 583
- Power of a Single Judge to Grant Extension of Time
- Outcome: The Court held that the Duty Judge, as a single Judge, did not have the same power as the Court of Appeal to grant an extension of time because the originating summons was not validly commenced.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Interpretation of 'pending' proceedings
- Validity of commencing proceedings
- Related Cases:
- [1952] MLJ 77
- [1985-1986] SLR(R) 869
- [1993] 2 SLR(R) 1
- (1882) 20 Ch D 637
- (1876) 1 PD 154
8. Remedies Sought
- Order of Committal
9. Cause of Actions
- Contempt of Court
10. Practice Areas
- Appellate Litigation
- Constitutional Litigation
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 354 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the application in OS 1175/2013 was not an appeal, and was in fact a “renewal application”. |
| K Sockalinga Mudaliar v S Eliathamby & Anor | Federation of Malaya Court of Appeal | Yes | [1952] MLJ 77 | Malaysia | Cited for the definition of the word “pending”. |
| Goh Teng Hoon and others v Choi Hon Ching | High Court | Yes | [1985-1986] SLR(R) 869 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of the word “pending”. |
| Bank of India v Rai Bahadur Singh and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of the word “pending”. |
| In re Clagett’s Estate; Fordham v Clagett | English Court of Appeal | Yes | (1882) 20 Ch D 637 | England | Cited for the definition of the word “pending”. |
| Sugden and others v Lord St Leonards and others | English Court of Appeal | Yes | (1876) 1 PD 154 | England | Cited for the proposition that no orders can be made if proceedings have not been already validly commenced. |
| Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 258 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Court of Appeal, being a creature of statute, can only be seized of jurisdiction that is conferred by statute. |
| Kemper Reinsurance Co v Minister of Finance and others | Judicial Committee of the Privy Council | Yes | [2000] 1 AC 1 | Bermuda | Cited to support the argument that a renewed application to the Court of Appeal under RSC Ord 59, r 14(3) is a true appeal with a procedure adapted to its ex parte nature. |
| Regina (Burkett) v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council and another | House of Lords | Yes | [2002] 1 WLR 1593 | England | Cited to support the argument that a renewed application to the Court of Appeal under RSC Ord 59, r 14(3) is a true appeal with a procedure adapted to its ex parte nature. |
| Lane and another v Esdaile and another | House of Lords | Yes | [1891] AC 210 | England | Cited in the context of exploring the true width of the rule in Lane v Esdaile. |
| In re Poh | House of Lords | Yes | [1983] 1 WLR 2 | England | Cited in the context of exploring the true width of the rule in Lane v Esdaile. |
| R v Bolton Justices, ex parte Graeme | N/A | Yes | (1986) 150 JP 190 | England | Cited to support the argument that it would be very peculiar indeed if this court was to exercise an original jurisdiction to give leave to proceed by judicial review in circumstances in which any consequent decision was unappealable to this court. |
| Dhillon v Secretary of State for the Home Department | English Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | (1988) 86 CrAppR 14 | England | Cited to support the argument that this Court has a special jurisdiction in judicial review matters. |
| Reg v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Turkoglu | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1988] QB 398 | England | Cited to support the argument that there would be a power to renew that application to this court, but no appeal. |
| Reg v Industrial Injuries Commissioner, ex parte Amalgamated Engineering Union | N/A | Yes | [1966] 2 QB 21 | England | Cited to support the argument that the English Court of Appeal has even held that it possessed the original jurisdiction to hear an application for judicial review after granting leave to an applicant to do so. |
| WEA Records Ltd v Visions Channel 4 Ltd and others | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1983] 1 WLR 721 | England | Cited to support the argument that the Court of Appeal hears appeals from orders and judgments. It does not hear original applications save to the extent that these are ancillary to an appeal. |
| Ocean Software Ltd v Kay and others | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 QB 583 | England | Cited to support the argument that the Court of Appeal did not have the jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff’s application for additional interlocutory relief because s 15(3) of the 1981 UK Act was inapplicable. |
| Cropper v Smith | English Court of Appeal | Yes | (1883) 24 ChD 305 | England | Cited to support the argument that the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction, and to my mind, according to the true reading of that rule, not a jurisdiction by way of appeal merely, but an independent jurisdiction. |
| Brown v Brook | English Court of Appeal | Yes | (1902) 86 LT 373 | England | Cited to support the argument that the Court of Appeal held that it had the jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff’s application, but did not indicate the source of the jurisdiction. |
| Subesh v Secretary of State for the Home Department and other appeals | N/A | Yes | [2004] All ER (D) 326 (Mar) | England | Cited to support the argument that the appeal process is not merely a re-run second time around of the first instance trial. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 57 r 16(3) |
| Rules of Court O 52 r 2(2) |
| Rules of Court O 52 r 1(3) |
| Rules of Court O 57 r 3(1) |
| Rules of Court O 57 r 5(1) |
| Rules of Court O 57 r 9 |
| Rules of Court O 57 r 9(1) |
| Rules of Court O 57 r 9A(2) |
| Rules of Court O 57 r 20 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act s 3 | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act s 29A | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act s 36(1) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act s 80(1) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| UK Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 (c 66) | United Kingdom |
| Courts Ordinance 1934 (No 17 of 1934; s 27(1) in Cap 10, Laws of the Straits Settlements, 1936 Rev Ed | Singapore |
| Courts Ordinance 1955 (No 14 of 1955; Cap 3, Laws of the Colony of Singapore, 1955 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Act No 7 of 1964) | Malaysia |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 15, 1970 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| UK Supreme Court Act 1981 (c 54) | United Kingdom |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Contempt of court
- Committal proceedings
- Ex parte application
- Leave to commence proceedings
- Original jurisdiction
- Appellate jurisdiction
- Incidental appellate jurisdiction
- Extension of time
- Pending proceedings
- Duty Judge
15.2 Keywords
- Jurisdiction
- Court of Appeal
- Contempt of Court
- Civil Procedure
- Singapore Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Contempt of Court | 90 |
| Appellate Practice | 80 |
| Civil Procedure | 70 |
| Administrative Law | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Jurisdiction
- Civil Procedure
- Contempt of Court