Ho Seow Wan v Ho Poey Wee: Contempt of Court for Breaching Order in Minority Oppression Suit
In Ho Seow Wan v Ho Poey Wee and others, the High Court of Singapore heard an application by the plaintiff, Ho Seow Wan, for an order to commit the first and second defendants, Ho Poey Wee and Ho Seow Ban, for contempt of court. The plaintiff alleged a deliberate breach of a court order dated 1 August 2012, which was made pending the resolution of two minority oppression claims. The court found that the defendants had deliberately disobeyed the 1 August 2012 Order through several intentional acts and held them guilty of contempt of court. The court reserved judgment on the appropriate punishment for the defendants.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Defendants found guilty of contempt of court.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Ho Seow Wan sought committal for contempt against Ho Poey Wee and Ho Seow Ban for breaching a court order related to a minority oppression claim. The court found the defendants guilty.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ho Seow Wan | Plaintiff | Individual | Successful in application | Won | |
| HO POEY WEE | Defendant | Individual | Contempt of court found | Lost | |
| HO SEOW BAN | Defendant | Individual | Contempt of court found | Lost | |
| GUAN HO CONSTRUCTION CO (PTE) LTD | Defendant | Corporation | N/A | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Seng Onn | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The plaintiff and defendants are brothers and were the only shareholders and directors of Guan Ho Construction Co (Pte) Ltd.
- A director’s meeting was held on 16 February 2012, during which a resolution was passed to strip the plaintiff of his executive and administrative powers.
- The plaintiff commenced S 195/2012 on 9 March 2012 for minority oppression.
- The plaintiff applied for an interlocutory injunction, which was granted on 1 August 2012.
- The plaintiff sought committal for contempt against the defendants for breaching the 1 August 2012 Order.
- The defendants failed to pass a resolution to authorise the plaintiff to issue notices in relation to his reinstatement.
- The defendants issued internal and external communications that curtailed the plaintiff’s powers and access to information.
5. Formal Citations
- Ho Seow Wan v Ho Poey Wee and others, Suit No 195 of 2012 and Suit No 1267 of 2014 (Summons No 5518 of 2013), [2015] SGHC 235
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Resolution passed to strip the plaintiff of his executive and administrative powers in relation to Guan Ho. | |
| Plaintiff commenced Suit No 195 of 2012 for minority oppression. | |
| Plaintiff applied for an interlocutory injunction. | |
| Court granted prayers 1 to 5 of the interlocutory injunction. | |
| Court allowed the plaintiff’s remaining prayers for the interlocutory injunction. | |
| Order of court issued. | |
| Defendants informed of the 1 August 2012 Order. | |
| First defendant sent email instructing not to give written statement to plaintiff. | |
| First defendant issued notice asking to direct settlement of final accounts to the 2nd defendant. | |
| Clarification hearing on the 1 August 2012 Order. | |
| Resolution passed to revoke the 16 February 2012 Resolution. | |
| 1 August 2012 Order extracted. | |
| 1 August 2012 Order served on the plaintiff. | |
| Deadline to pass resolution to authorise the plaintiff to issue notices. | |
| First defendant issued memorandum instructing staff to disregard plaintiff’s instructions. | |
| First defendant sent email instructing to keep tender information between defendants and exclude the plaintiff. | |
| First defendant sent emails to clients, suppliers and subcontractors. | |
| First defendant issued notice instructing staff not to accede to the plaintiff’s requests. | |
| First defendant sent email to Woodwater Integrated Pte Ltd. | |
| Plaintiff sought leave to apply for an order of committal. | |
| Court granted the plaintiff leave. | |
| Plaintiff filed Summons No 5518 of 2013. | |
| Court directed the plaintiff to file a list of selected breaches. | |
| S 195/2012 and S 1267/2014 were consolidated. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Contempt of Court
- Outcome: The court found that the defendants had deliberately disobeyed the 1 August 2012 Order through several intentional acts and held them guilty of contempt of court.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Deliberate breach of court order
- Intentional disobedience of court order
- Minority Oppression
- Outcome: The court's decision on contempt was related to an underlying minority oppression claim, but the court did not make a ruling on the minority oppression claim itself in this judgment.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Order for committal of the defendants for contempt of court
9. Cause of Actions
- Contempt of Court
- Minority Oppression
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Injunctions
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP and others v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) and others | N/A | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 60 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court has unfettered discretion to dispense with personal service of an order if it thinks it is just to do so, and to determine whether the defendant was aware of the terms of the order at the material time. |
| Summit Holdings Ltd and another v Business Software Alliance | N/A | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR(R) 592 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that motive of disobedience is not relevant in determining if a defendant is liable for contempt, but is relevant in determining mitigating circumstances for the purposes of punishment for contempt. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 45 r 5(1)(b) of the Rules of Court |
| Order 45 r 7(2) of the Rules of Court |
| Order 45 r 7(6)–(7) of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Contempt of court
- Minority oppression
- Interlocutory injunction
- Executive director
- Project director
- Internal communications
- External communications
- Resolution
- Reinstatement
- Deliberate breach
- 1 August 2012 Order
15.2 Keywords
- Contempt
- Injunction
- Minority oppression
- Construction
- Director
- Shareholder
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Contempt of Court | 95 |
| Minority Oppression | 90 |
| Company Law | 85 |
| Injunctions | 70 |
| Civil Procedure | 60 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
| Administrative Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Contempt of Court
- Injunctions
- Corporate Law