Tay Kar Oon v Tahir: Appeal Against Imprisonment for Contempt of Court

In Tay Kar Oon v Tahir, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal against the decision of the Judicial Commissioner to commit Tay Kar Oon to eight weeks’ imprisonment for contempt of court. The Respondent, Tahir, had applied for committal proceedings based on Tay Kar Oon's breaches of court orders. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the imprisonment and substituting a fine of S$10,000.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal against imprisonment for contempt of court. The court allowed the appeal, substituting the imprisonment with a fine.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Tay Kar OonAppellantIndividualAppeal AllowedWon
TahirRespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeNo
Judith PrakashJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Tay Yong KwangJustice of the Court of AppealYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Salem IbrahimSalem Ibrahim LLC
Daniel ChiaMorgan Lewis Stamford LLC

4. Facts

  1. The Respondent commenced an action against the Appellant for the recovery of sums paid for a sculpture.
  2. The parties entered into a settlement agreement, but the Appellant failed to comply with it.
  3. The Respondent commenced a second action against the Appellant for breach of the settlement agreement.
  4. Judgment was entered against the Appellant as she failed to enter an appearance.
  5. The Respondent filed an EJD application, and the Appellant failed to attend the EJD hearing.
  6. The Respondent filed for a Mareva injunction against the Appellant, prohibiting the disposal of assets.
  7. The Appellant failed to file the Disclosure Affidavit and breached court directions.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Tay Kar Oon v Tahir, Civil Appeal No 66 of 2016, [2017] SGCA 31
  2. Tahir v Tay Kar Oon, , [2016] 3 SLR 296

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Respondent entered into an agreement to purchase a sculpture from the Appellant.
Respondent commenced an action against the Appellant for the recovery of sums paid.
Parties entered into a settlement agreement.
Respondent commenced a second action against the Appellant for breach of the settlement agreement.
Judgment was entered against the Appellant in Suit No 922 of 2015.
Respondent filed Summons No 4591 of 2015 for a Mareva injunction against the Appellant.
Appellant was directed to attend before the Registrar on 23 October 2015 to be orally examined on her assets.
Appellant and her solicitors failed to attend the EJD hearing.
Assistant Registrar ordered the Appellant to provide answers to the EJD Questionnaire by 6 November 2015 and to attend court on 13 November 2015.
Kan Ting Chiu SJ granted the Respondent’s application for a Mareva injunction.
Appellant was to furnish an affidavit disclosing all her assets in Singapore.
Appellant failed to provide answers to the EJD Questionnaire.
Appellant failed to attend the EJD hearing.
Chua Lee Ming JC granted the Respondent leave to commence committal proceedings.
First hearing before the Judge; Appellant admitted liability for acts of contempt.
Second hearing before the Judge; Judge viewed that several parts of the EJD Questionnaire were incomplete.
Third hearing before the Judge; Appellant disclosed missing bank statements from her OCBC Bank account.
Fourth and final hearing; Respondent’s counsel informed the Judge that he was prepared to withdraw the committal proceedings.
Judge handed down his decision, committing the Appellant to eight weeks’ imprisonment.
Medical report from Dr. Thomas Lee.
Hearing date.
Judgment date.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Contempt of Court
    • Outcome: The court found that the Appellant was in contempt of court for breaching court orders and directions but reduced the sentence from imprisonment to a fine.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Breach of court orders
      • Failure to attend court hearings
      • Failure to disclose assets

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Committal to prison
  2. Fine

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Contempt of Court

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • Arts

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Tahir v Tay Kar OonHigh CourtYes[2016] 3 SLR 296SingaporeThe judgment being appealed against, where the Judicial Commissioner committed the Appellant to eight weeks’ imprisonment for contempt of court.
Seaward v PatersonN/AYes[1897] 1 Ch 545United KingdomCited to illustrate that cases of criminal contempt cannot be waived or settled.
Attorney-General v Times Newspapers LtdN/AYes[1974] 1 AC 273United KingdomCited for the proposition that there is an element of public policy in punishing civil contempt, but no sufficient public interest is served by punishing the offender if the person for whose benefit the order was made chooses not to insist on its enforcement.
Heatons Transport (St Helens) Ltd v Transport and General Workers’ Union (Interim Proceedings)N/AYes[1972] ICR 285United KingdomCited for the proposition 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.
Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd v Karaha Bodas Co LLC and othersCourt of AppealYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 518SingaporeCited to emphasize that there will always be an element of public interest in the context of civil contempt.
Summit Holdings Ltd and another v Business Software AllianceHigh CourtYes[1999] 2 SLR(R) 592SingaporeCited for the importance of the O 52 r 2(2) statement in notifying the alleged contemnor of the allegations made against him.
Yeo Chong Lin v Tay Ang Choo Nancy and another appealN/AYes[2011] 2 SLR 1157SingaporeCited for the test to be applied in relation to the report was whether the further evidence would have “a perceptible impact on the decision such that it is in the interests of justice that it should be admitted”
Ladd v MarshallN/AYes[1954] 1 WLR 1489N/ACited for the three requirements to demonstrate “special grounds” in order for such evidence to be admitted.
Soh Meiyun v Public ProsecutorN/AYes[2014] 3 SLR 299SingaporeCited for the court should generally admit fresh evidence on appeal where the evidence is relevant and reliable and would go towards exonerating a convicted person or reducing his sentence.
Mok Kah Hong v Zheng Zhuan YaoN/AYes[2016] 3 SLR 1SingaporeCited for the Ladd v Marshall requirements do not apply with full rigour in the context of contempt proceedings which are quasi-criminal in nature.
Cheng-Wong Mei Ling Theresa v Oei Hong LeongCourt of AppealYes[2006] 2 SLR(R) 637SingaporeCited for where a judge took up a point in his decision which was not raised by the parties and did not give notice of this new point to the parties, the Ladd v Marshall test ought not to be applied rigidly and the parties should be allowed to adduce evidence in the appeal to deal with the new point
You Xin v Public Prosecutor and another appealN/AYes[2007] 4 SLR(R) 17SingaporeCited for the categorisation of contempt of court into contempt by interference (ie, criminal contempt) and contempt by disobedience (ie, civil contempt).
Lee Shieh-Peen Clement and another v Ho Chin Nguang and othersN/AYes[2010] 4 SLR 801SingaporeCited for the committal to prison would normally be a measure of last resort.
Crystal Mews Ltd v MetterickN/AYes[2006] EWHC 3087 (Ch)England and WalesCited for a number of factors which would be relevant to the issue of sentencing.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 52 Rule 5(2) of the Rules of Court
Order 52 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court
Order 52 Rule 2(2) of the Rules of Court
Order 52 Rule 5(4) of the Rules of Court
Order 52 Rule 5(3) of the Rules of Court
Order 20 Rule 8 of the Rules of Court
Order 57 Rule 13(2) of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 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
  • Disclosure affidavit

15.2 Keywords

  • Contempt of court
  • Civil contempt
  • Mareva injunction
  • Singapore
  • Court of Appeal
  • Civil procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Civil Contempt90
Contempt of Court90
Garnishee Proceedings40
Breach of Court Order30
Asset Recovery30
Civil Procedure20
Litigation20

16. Subjects

  • Contempt of Court
  • Civil Procedure