Maruti Shipping v Tay Sien Djim: Contempt of Court for Breaching Anton Piller & Mareva Injunctions

In Maruti Shipping Pte Ltd v Tay Sien Djim and others, the High Court of Singapore heard an application by the plaintiff, Maruti Shipping Pte Ltd, for committal orders against Tay Sien Djim, R M Martin Pte Ltd (RMMPL), and Tay Jiashen Martin for contempt of court. The alleged contempt stemmed from breaches of an Anton Piller order, a Mareva injunction, and ancillary orders. The court found Moses Tay guilty of multiple breaches, including preventing the execution of the Anton Piller order, withdrawing funds in violation of the Mareva injunction, and failing to surrender his passport. RMMPL and Martin Tay were also found guilty of contempt for failing to comply with disclosure requirements. Moses Tay was sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment, while Martin Tay and RMMPL were each fined $10,000. The plaintiff was awarded costs on an indemnity basis.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Contempt of court established against all contemnors. Moses Tay sentenced to imprisonment, Martin Tay and RMMPL fined.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Contempt of court proceedings against Tay Sien Djim and others for breaches of Anton Piller and Mareva Injunctions. Tay Sien Djim sentenced to imprisonment.

1.7 Decision Date

6 November 2014

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Maruti Shipping Pte Ltd	Plaintiff	Corporation	Judgment for Plaintiff	Won	Eddee Ng, Keith Tnee, Ooi Huey Hien
Tay Sien Djim	Defendant	Individual	Contempt of Court	Lost	A P Thirumurthy
R M Martin Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Contempt of Court	Lost	A P Thirumurthy
Tay Jiashen Martin	Defendant	Individual	Contempt of Court	Lost

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Edmund Leow	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Eddee Ng	Tan Kok Quan Partnership
Keith Tnee	Tan Kok Quan Partnership
Ooi Huey Hien	Tan Kok Quan Partnership
A P Thirumurthy	Murthy & Co
Gan Kam Yuin	Bih Li & Lee

4. Facts

Plaintiff commenced action against RMMPL for breaches of contracts and breach of trust, and against Moses Tay for inducement of breach of contract.
Plaintiff obtained an Anton Piller order against Moses Tay and RMMPL.
Plaintiff obtained a Mareva injunction prohibiting Moses Tay and RMMPL from disposing of their assets worldwide.
Moses Tay was served with the Anton Piller Order and Mareva Injunction.
Moses Tay withdrew $380,000 from his OCBC account in breach of the Mareva Injunction.
Moses Tay failed to surrender his passport as required by the Ancillary Orders.
Moses Tay prevented the execution of the Anton Piller Order at the Golden Agri Premises and the Sentosa Cove Premises.

5. Formal Citations

Maruti Shipping Pte Ltd v Tay Sien Djim and others, Suit No 631 of 2010 (Summons No 4809 of 2010), [2014] SGHC 227

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2010-08-19	Plaintiff commenced action against RMMPL and Moses Tay.
2010-08-19	Plaintiff applied for Anton Piller order against Moses Tay and RMMPL.
2010-08-19	Plaintiff applied for Mareva injunction against Moses Tay and RMMPL.
2010-08-20	Anton Piller order granted.
2010-08-20	Mareva injunction granted.
2010-08-23	Anton Piller order allegedly served on Moses Tay.
2010-08-23	Mareva Injunction allegedly served on Moses Tay.
2010-08-27	Indah Resources Pte Ltd and PT Waegeo Mineral Mining added as defendants.
2010-08-27	Anton Piller order extended to include IRPL and PTWMM.
2010-08-27	Mareva Injunction extended to include IRPL and PTWMM.
2010-08-27	Orders made to restrain Moses Tay from leaving Singapore.
2010-08-27	Orders made to direct Moses Tay to surrender his passports.
2010-09-01	Order for substituted service on Moses Tay for the Ancillary Orders obtained.
2010-10-05	Plaintiff obtained leave to commence contempt proceedings.
2010-10-12	Plaintiff commenced contempt proceedings against the Contemnors.
2011-01-13	Hearing for the committal proceedings was initially fixed.
2013-03-28	Plaintiff obtained interlocutory judgment against Moses Tay.
2013-06-07	Plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement with IRPL.
2013-08-29	Moses Tay was declared a bankrupt.
2013-11-05	Plaintiff obtained final judgment against RMMPL and PTWMM.
2014-02-04	Committal hearing fixed before Edmund Leow JC.
2014-11-07	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Contempt of Court
- Outcome: The court found the contemnors guilty of contempt of court for breaching the Anton Piller order, Mareva injunction, and ancillary orders.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Breach of Anton Piller Order
  - Breach of Mareva Injunction
  - Failure to comply with disclosure requirements
  - Failure to surrender passport
- Related Cases:
  - [2014] 2 SLR 1261
  - [2010] 4 SLR(R) 870
  - [2013] SGHC 105
  - [2007] 2 SLR(R) 518
Mental Capacity as Defense to Contempt
- Outcome: The court rejected the argument that Moses Tay's mental condition negated his mens rea for contempt of court.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Committal to prison
Fines

9. Cause of Actions

Contempt of Court

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Shipping

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
STX Corp v Jason Surjana Tanuwidjaja and others	High Court	Yes	[2014] 2 SLR 1261	Singapore	Cited for the principles regarding an action for civil contempt and the standard of proof required.
Tan Beow Hiong v Tan Boon Aik	High Court	Yes	[2010] 4 SLR(R) 870	Singapore	Cited for the threshold to establish the guilty intention necessary for a finding of civil contempt.
Global Distressed Alpha Fund I Ltd Partnership v PT Bakrie Investindo	High Court	Yes	[2013] SGHC 105	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the reasons for disobedience are irrelevant in establishing liability for contempt.
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 it must be shown that the alleged contemnor was aware of their obligations to the court.
Re L (A Ward)	English High Court	Yes	[1988] 1 FLR 255	England and Wales	Cited regarding the knowledge of the existence of the order and of all of its material terms.
Knight v Clifton	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1971] Ch 700	England and Wales	Cited regarding the prohibition is absolute and is not to be related to intent unless otherwise stated on the face of the order.
Forresters Ketley v Brent and another	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] EWCA Civ 324	England and Wales	Cited regarding the discretion of a judge to adjourn a hearing based on medical grounds.
Thomson v Pheney	Court of King's Bench	Yes	(1832) 1 DPC 441	England and Wales	Cited regarding the proper service of a document when the person to be served refuses to accept it.
Wardle Fabrics Ltd v G Myristis Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1984] FSR 263	England and Wales	Cited regarding liability for contempt when refusing to allow a solicitor to read a search order.
Precious Wishes Ltd v Sinoble Metalloy International (Pte) Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2000] SGHC 5	Singapore	Cited to show that Moses Tay had previously been committed to prison for breaching a Mareva injunction.
Bird v Hadkinson	High Court	Yes	[2000] CP Rep 21	England and Wales	Cited regarding the standard of care required when providing answers to the court.
OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP and others v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) and others	High Court	Yes	[2005] 3 SLR(R) 60	Singapore	Cited regarding the court's discretion to retrospectively dispense with the service of orders.
Templeton Insurance Ltd v Motorcare Warranties Ltd and others	High Court	Yes	[2012] EWHC 795 (Comm)	England and Wales	Cited for the proposition that a director has not wilfully disobeyed a court order if he can reasonably believe that some other director or officer is taking the required steps.
Attorney General of Tuvalu v Philatelic Distribution Corp Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1990] 1 WLR 926	England and Wales	Cited regarding the duty of a director to supervise and investigate to prevent a breach of a court order.
IJM Corporation Bhd v Harta Kumpulan Sdn Bhd (Part 2)	High Court	Yes	[2007] MLJU 822	Malaysia	Cited regarding the obligation of each director to ensure that the company complies with any court order affecting the company.
P J Holdings Inc v Ariel Singapore Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2009] 3 SLR(R) 582	Singapore	Cited to distinguish between neglecting and omitting to do something, and the requirement of a reasonable excuse for non-compliance.
Sembcorp Marine Ltd v Aurol Anthony Sabastian	High Court	Yes	[2013] 1 SLR 245	Singapore	Cited for the sentencing principles for contempt of court proceedings.
Idya Nurhazlyn bte Ahmad Khir v Public Prosecutor and another appeal	High Court	Yes	[2014] 1 SLR 756	Singapore	Cited regarding the consideration of psychiatric condition as a mitigating factor in sentencing.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 52 r 5(4)	Singapore
Mental Capacity Act (Cap 177A, 2010 Rev Ed) ss 19 and 20	Singapore
Rules of Court O 45 r 5(1)(a)(ii)	Singapore
Rules of Court O 45 r 7(3)	Singapore
Rules of Court O 45 r 7(7)	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) Part XVII	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code s 339(2)	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code ss 339(3) and (4)	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) Section 7(1)	Singapore
Rules of Court O 52 r 1(1)	Singapore
Rules of Court O 52 r 8	Singapore
Rules of Court O 52 r 6	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Anton Piller Order
Mareva Injunction
Contempt of Court
Breach of Court Order
Disclosure Requirements
Mental Capacity
Mens Rea

15.2 Keywords

Contempt of Court
Anton Piller Order
Mareva Injunction
Singapore
Civil Procedure

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Contempt of Court
Injunctions

17. Areas of Law

Civil Procedure
Contempt of Court
Injunctions