Tahir v Tay Kar Oon: Contempt of Court for Breaching Examination of Judgment Debtor and Mareva Injunction Orders

In Tahir v Tay Kar Oon, the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by the Plaintiff, Tahir, for an order of committal against the Defendant, Tay Kar Oon, for breaches of court orders related to the examination of a judgment debtor and a Mareva injunction. The breaches arose from enforcement of a judgment sum owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. The High Court granted the order of committal and sentenced the Defendant to eight weeks’ imprisonment.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Order of committal granted; Defendant sentenced to eight weeks’ imprisonment.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Tahir v Tay Kar Oon involves contempt of court for breaching orders related to examination of judgment debtor and a Mareva injunction. The court sentenced the defendant to eight weeks' imprisonment.

1.7 Decision Date

11 April 2016

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Tay Kar Oon	Defendant	Individual	Imprisonment	Lost	Letchamanan Devadason of Legal Standard LLP Mahtani Bhagwandas of Legal Standard LLP Hariz Lee of Legal Standard LLP
Tahir	Plaintiff	Individual	Order of committal granted	Won	Daniel Chia of Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC Kenneth Kong of Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC Loh Jien Li of Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Edmund Leow	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Letchamanan Devadason	Legal Standard LLP
Mahtani Bhagwandas	Legal Standard LLP
Hariz Lee	Legal Standard LLP
Daniel Chia	Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC
Kenneth Kong	Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC
Loh Jien Li	Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC

4. Facts

The Plaintiff paid the Defendant USD $1,638,100.00 to purchase a sculpture, but the deal did not materialize.
The Defendant failed to pay sums due under a Settlement Agreement, leading to a judgment against her.
The Defendant failed to attend court for examination as a judgment debtor.
The Defendant failed to file an affidavit disclosing her assets as required by a Disclosure Order.
The Defendant was adjudicated a bankrupt on 11 November 2015.
The Defendant breached a Mareva Injunction by withdrawing $3000.00 from her account after the injunction was issued.
The Defendant concealed bank statements showing breaches of the Mareva Injunction.

5. Formal Citations

Tahir v Tay Kar Oon, Suit No 922 of 2015, [2016] SGHC 60

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2014-01-01	Plaintiff paid the Defendant USD $1,638,100.00 to purchase a sculpture.
2015-07-01	Parties entered into a Settlement Agreement.
2015-10-09	Plaintiff obtained an order for the examination of judgment debtor.
2015-10-23	Defendant failed to attend court pursuant to the EJD Order.
2015-10-23	Assistant Registrar directed the Defendant to comply with the EJD Order by 6 November 2015.
2015-10-27	Plaintiff obtained a Mareva Injunction.
2015-10-28	Defendant withdrew $3000.00 from the account in three withdrawals.
2015-11-05	Defendant failed to file the affidavit as directed by the Disclosure Order.
2015-11-06	Defendant failed to provide answers to the EJD Questionnaire.
2015-11-11	Defendant was adjudicated a bankrupt.
2015-11-13	Defendant failed to turn up for the adjourned hearing.
2015-12-03	Plaintiff applied for leave to commence committal proceedings.
2015-12-17	Plaintiff’s application for leave to commence committal proceedings was allowed.
2016-01-15	First hearing for SUM 6252/2015.
2016-02-11	Second hearing.
2016-02-26	Third hearing.
2016-03-01	Hearing date.
2016-04-12	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Contempt of Court
- Outcome: The court found the Defendant guilty of contempt of court for breaching court orders and directions, including breaches of a Mareva Injunction.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Breach of court orders
  - Failure to comply with court directions
  - Concealment of breaches
- Related Cases:
  - [2016] SGCA 8
  - [1999] 2 SLR(R) 592
  - [2007] 2 SLR(R) 518
  - [1972] ICR 285
  - [1972] 2 QB 52
  - [2010] 4 SLR 801
  - [2006] EWHC 3087 (Ch)
  - [1989] 1 FLR 414
  - [2013] 1 SLR 245
  - [2013] SGHC 105
  - [2009] 3 SLR(R) 582
  - [2014] 2 SLR 1261
  - [2001] SGHC 199
  - [2014] SGHC 227
  - [2005] 3 SLR(R) 60
  - [2000] SGHC 5
Sentencing
- Outcome: The court sentenced the Defendant to eight weeks’ imprisonment, considering aggravating and mitigating factors.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Factors considered in sentencing for contempt of court
  - Mitigating and aggravating factors
- Related Cases:
  - [2016] SGCA 8
  - [2010] 4 SLR 801
  - [2006] EWHC 3087 (Ch)
  - [1989] 1 FLR 414
  - [2013] 1 SLR 245
  - [2013] SGHC 105
  - [2014] 2 SLR 1261
  - [2001] SGHC 199
  - [2014] SGHC 227
  - [2005] 3 SLR(R) 60
  - [2000] SGHC 5

8. Remedies Sought

Order of Committal
Imprisonment
Fine

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Contempt of Court

10. Practice Areas

Litigation
Civil Litigation

11. Industries

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Mok Kah Hong v Zheng Zhuan Yao	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] SGCA 8	Singapore	Cited for the role of the O 52 r 2(2) statement in contempt proceedings and factors relevant to sentencing in cases of contempt by disobedience.
Summit Holdings Ltd and another v Business Software Alliance	High Court	Yes	[1999] 2 SLR(R) 592	Singapore	Cited for the rationale behind the O 52 r 2(2) statement and the court's summary power to punish for contempt, but distinguished on the facts.
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 the doctrine of contempt of court is rooted in the public interest.
Heatons Transport (St Helens) Ltd v Transport and General Workers Union; Craddock Brothers v Transport and General Workers Union; Panalpina Services Ltd and another v Transport and General Workers Union and others	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1972] ICR 285	England	Cited for the principle that once proceedings for contempt of court have been set in motion, it is not open to the parties to settle the matter of the contempt.
Jennison v Baker	N/A	Yes	[1972] 2 QB 52	N/A	Cited for the principle that justice should not vanish over the horizon and the law should not be brought into disrepute.
Lee Shieh-Peen Clement and another v Ho Chin Nguang and others	N/A	Yes	[2010] 4 SLR 801	Singapore	Cited for the principle that committal to prison is normally a measure of last resort.
Crystalmews Ltd v Metterick and others	English High Court	Yes	[2006] EWHC 3087 (Ch)	England and Wales	Cited for the factors relevant to sentencing in cases of contempt by disobedience.
Lightfoot v Lightfoot	N/A	Yes	[1989] 1 FLR 414	N/A	Cited for the principle that a harsh stance in sentencing is adopted where a significant portion of assets has been disposed of with no prospect of recovery.
Sembcorp Marine Ltd v Aurol Anthony Sabastian	N/A	Yes	[2013] 1 SLR 245	Singapore	Cited for the relevant factors in sentencing, such as whether a fine would be an adequate deterrent and whether the contemnor was remorseful.
Global Distressed Alpha Fund I Ltd Partnership v PT Bakrie Investindo	High Court	Yes	[2013] SGHC 105	Singapore	Cited for the relevant factors in sentencing, such as whether a fine would be an adequate deterrent and whether the contemnor was remorseful.
P J Holdings Inc v Ariel Singapore Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2009] 3 SLR(R) 582	Singapore	Cited for distinction, where contempt proceedings were wrongly commenced on the basis of a debtor’s inability to repay a judgment sum.
STX Corp v Jason Surjana Tanuwidjaja and others	N/A	Yes	[2014] 2 SLR 1261	Singapore	Cited by the Defendant's Counsel to support the submission for a fine, but distinguished as a case of mere omission.
Arubugam Suppiah v Curt Evert Borgensten	High Court	Yes	[2001] SGHC 199	Singapore	Cited by the Plaintiff’s Counsel for distinction, where the defendant failed to attend five EJD hearings and also failed to file an asset disclosure affidavit, but eventually paid up the final judgment sum that was owed and filed the asset disclosure affidavit.
Maruti Shipping Pte Ltd v Tay Sien Djim and others	N/A	Yes	[2014] SGHC 227	Singapore	Cited for the approach of punishing breaches of Mareva injunctions by way of actively dissipating assets, or omissions with intent to conceal assets or the dissipation of such more harshly.
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 approach of punishing breaches of Mareva injunctions by way of actively dissipating assets, or omissions with intent to conceal assets or the dissipation of such more harshly.
Precious Wishes Limited v Sinoble Metalloy International (Pte) Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2000] SGHC 5	Singapore	Cited for the approach of punishing breaches of Mareva injunctions by way of actively dissipating assets, or omissions with intent to conceal assets or the dissipation of such more harshly.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Contempt of Court
Mareva Injunction
Examination of Judgment Debtor
Breach of Court Order
Committal Proceedings
Settlement Agreement
Bankruptcy
Asset Disclosure
Purging Contempt

15.2 Keywords

Contempt of Court
Mareva Injunction
Examination of Judgment Debtor
Breach of Court Order
Singapore
High Court
Imprisonment

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Civil Contempt	95
Mareva Injunctions	80
Judgments and Orders	70
Enforcement of Order	60
Bankruptcy	40
Criminal Procedure	5

16. Subjects

Contempt of Court
Civil Procedure
Injunctions
Debt Recovery