Technigroup v Singh: Civil Contempt & Sentencing for Discovery Order Breach
Technigroup Far East Pte Ltd and Technigroup International Pvt Ltd sued Jaswinderpal Singh, Tan Weng Kong, Sukhminder Kaur, Chaw Kooi Lin, and Office Furniture Specialty Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore for breach of contract and fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs alleged that the first and second defendants, while employed by the plaintiffs, started a rival business, Office Furniture Specialty Pte Ltd, and misappropriated the plaintiffs' confidential information. The court found the first, second, and fourth defendants in contempt of court for breaching a discovery order related to documents of related entities. The first and second defendants were sentenced to four months' imprisonment, suspended for four weeks, and the fourth defendant was fined $5,000.00.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
The first and second defendants were sentenced to four months' imprisonment, suspended for four weeks. The fourth defendant was fined $5,000.00.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Technigroup sued Singh for breach of contract and fiduciary duties. Singh was found in civil contempt for breaching a discovery order and sentenced.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technigroup Far East Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment in favour of Plaintiff | Won | |
| Technigroup International Pvt Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment in favour of Plaintiff | Won | |
| Jaswinderpal Singh s/o Bachint Singh | Defendant | Individual | Found in contempt of court | Lost | |
| Tan Weng Kong | Defendant | Individual | Found in contempt of court | Lost | |
| Sukhminder Kaur d/o Guljar Singh | Defendant | Individual | Committal proceedings were not pursued | Neutral | |
| Chaw Kooi Lin | Defendant | Individual | Found in contempt of court | Lost | |
| Office Furniture Specialty Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Interlocutory judgment entered against the defendants | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Steven Chong | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The plaintiffs sued the defendants for breach of contract and fiduciary duties.
- The first and second defendants started a rival business while employed by the plaintiffs.
- The defendants were subject to multiple discovery orders.
- The defendants failed to fully comply with the discovery orders.
- The defendants denied the existence of related entities.
- The court found that OFS China existed and was controlled by the first and second defendants.
- The defendants failed to disclose documents related to OFS China.
5. Formal Citations
- Technigroup Far East Pte Ltd and another v Jaswinderpal Singh s/o Bachint Singh and others, Suit No 727 of 2013(Summons No 4071 of 2016), [2017] SGHC 68
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Suit No 379 of 2013 commenced by the first defendant | |
| Suit No 581 of 2013 commenced by the majority shareholder of TFE | |
| Plaintiffs sued the defendants in Suit No 727 of 2013 | |
| Assistant Registrar Yap Han Ming Jonathan granted the 1st Discovery Order | |
| Assistant Registrar Yap ordered the 2nd Discovery Order | |
| Assistant Registrar Una Khng issued the 6 May Discovery Order | |
| Plaintiffs provided a list of their customers and/or potential customers | |
| A sealed copy of the 6 May Discovery Order was served on the defendants’ then solicitors, Kertar Law LLC | |
| Defendants’ solicitors wrote to the plaintiffs’ solicitors | |
| Plaintiffs applied in Summons No 2933 of 2016 for leave to apply for an order of committal against the first to fourth defendants | |
| Defendants filed a supplementary list of documents | |
| The leave application was heard before me | |
| Plaintiffs filed the present Summons No 4071 of 2016 | |
| The committal summons and the O 52 Statement were served personally on the fourth defendant | |
| The committal summons and the O 52 Statement were served personally on the first and second defendants | |
| First hearing of the committal summons | |
| Second hearing | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Discovery Order
- Outcome: The court found the first, second, and fourth defendants in contempt of court for breaching the discovery order.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to disclose documents
- Incomplete disclosure of documents
- Failure to provide adequate explanations for non-disclosure
- Civil Contempt
- Outcome: The court found the first, second, and fourth defendants in civil contempt for deliberately failing to disclose documents.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Intentional disobedience of court order
- Wilful defiance of court authority
- Sentencing for Contempt of Court
- Outcome: The court sentenced the first and second defendants to four months' imprisonment, suspended for four weeks, and the fourth defendant to a fine of $5,000.00.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Factors influencing sentencing
- Appropriateness of custodial sentence
- Mitigating and aggravating factors
- Issue Estoppel
- Outcome: The court found that issue estoppel did not arise in this case to preclude the defendants from denying the Disputed Facts for the purposes of the committal application.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages
- Account of Profits
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty
- Conspiracy
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Furniture
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mok Kah Hong v Zheng Zhuan Yao | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for the legal requirements for an O 52 statement and the function of enabling the alleged contemnors to know the case against them. |
| Summit Holdings Ltd and another v Business Software Alliance | N/A | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR(R) 592 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that the plaintiffs are allowed to rely only on the grounds set out in the O 52 statement. |
| BMP v BMQ and another appeal | N/A | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 1140 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that the test of sufficient particularity is to be enforced at the leave stage. |
| STX Corp v Jason Surjana Tanuwidjaja and others | N/A | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 1261 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that failure to comply with a court order by the specified time can constitute contempt and may be punished even if compliance is effected at a later time. |
| Comet Products UK Ltd v Hawkex Plastics Ltd and Another | N/A | Yes | [1971] 2 WLR 361 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that leave can be given to cross-examine an alleged contemnor if he elects to put his affidavit in evidence. |
| Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd v Karaha Bodas Co LLC and others | N/A | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 518 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in both criminal and civil contempt, the court applies the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Public Prosecutor v Nur Ellesha Shahidah Bte Abdul Rahman @ Sasha Binte Abdul Rahman | N/A | Yes | [2016] SGDC 11 | Singapore | Cited for the position in criminal proceedings that issue estoppel either did not apply at all in committal proceedings, or only applied defensively to protect the defendant from having to face allegations previously determined in his favour. |
| Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation of Strata Title Plan No 301 | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 157 | Singapore | Cited for establishing the requirements for issue estoppel. |
| Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck and others | N/A | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 453 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that interlocutory orders can constitute a “final and conclusive judgment on the merits” of an issue. |
| Cost Engineers (SEA) Pte Ltd and another v Chan Siew Lun | N/A | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 137 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a consent judgment can be final and capable of forming the basis of an issue estoppel. |
| The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 689 v DTZ Debenham Tie Leung (SEA) Pte Ltd and Another | High Court | Yes | [2008] SGHC 98 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that before a court will order specific disclosure under O 24 r 5 of the Rules of Court, it will first need to be satisfied that there is a prima facie case that the documents are (or have been) in the possession, custody or power of the party in question and the documents sought are relevant and necessary. |
| Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG | N/A | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR(R) 91 | Singapore | Cited as an example that discovery and inspection orders could form the basis of an issue estoppel. |
| Alliance Management SA v Pendleton Lane P and another and another suit | N/A | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited as an example that discovery and inspection orders could form the basis of an issue estoppel. |
| McIlkenny v Chief Constable of the West Midlands and another | N/A | Yes | [1980] 1 QB 283 | England and Wales | Cited to show that the authority cited by the first defendant does not in fact support the proposition being advanced. |
| Tan Beow Hiong v Tan Boon Aik | N/A | Yes | [2010] 4 SLR 870 | Singapore | Cited for the plaintiffs' submission that it was only necessary for them to prove a prima facie breach of the 6 May Discovery Order, following which the burden would shift to the defendants to prove their defence that the Related Entities do not exist and hence the Related Party Documents do not exist either. |
| Monex Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v E-Clearing (Singapore) Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 1169 | Singapore | Cited to show that the evidential burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants have documents within their possession, custody or power that have not been disclosed. |
| Ip Pui Lam Arthur and Another v Alan Chung Wah Tang and Another | Hong Kong Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] HKCU 472 | Hong Kong | Cited to show that the evidential burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants have documents within their possession, custody or power that have not been disclosed. |
| VIS Trading Co Ltd v Nazarov and ors | N/A | Yes | [2015] EWHC 3327 (QB) | England and Wales | Cited to show that the evidential burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants have documents within their possession, custody or power that have not been disclosed. |
| Soh Lup Chee and others v Seow Boon Cheng and another | N/A | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 604 | Singapore | Cited to show that where the court is satisfied from the documents produced that other documents must exist, the party concerned must either produce them or explain on oath what has become of them. |
| 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 to show that in subsequent committal proceedings for breaches of the disclosure order and cross-examination order, only the purported breaches – the inadequacy of the “holding affidavits” and the failure to turn up for cross-examination – had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Maruti Shipping Pte Ltd v Tay Sien Djim and others | High Court | Yes | [2014] SGHC 227 | Singapore | Cited to show that the court took into account the contemnor’s past conduct, noting that he was a “repeat offender” who had previously breached a Mareva injunction. |
| Lexi Holdings Plc (in administration) v Luqman and others | N/A | Yes | [2007] EWHC 1508 (Ch) | England and Wales | Cited to show that the impact of the disobedience on the other party was even more clearly a consideration. |
| Crystal Mews Limited v Metterick & Others | N/A | Yes | [2006] EWHC 3087 (Ch) | England and Wales | Cited for identifying several factors relevant to sentencing. |
| JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko and others (No 2) | N/A | Yes | [2012] 1 WLR 350 | England and Wales | Cited to show that deliberate and substantial breaches of the disclosure provisions of a freezing order tend to be treated as a serious matter because any subsisting non-disclosure increases the risk that assets may be dissipated without accountability, which in turn undermines the very purpose of a freezing order and the other party’s ability to satisfy his claim. |
| Lexi Holdings Plc (In Administration) v Shaid Luqman & Ors | N/A | Yes | [2007] EWHC 2355 (Ch) | England and Wales | Cited to show that the defendant’s provisional sentence was in fact revised upwards because he had “grossly aggravated his contempt” by having further affidavits filed on his behalf which were either fabricated or a product of duress, containing “convenient” explanations devoid of documentary evidence. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 45 r 5 of the Rules of Court |
| O 45 r 7(4) of the Rules of Court |
| O 52 r 2(2) of the Rules of Court |
| O 38 r 2(2) of the Rules of Court |
| O 24 r 5 of the Rules of Court |
| O 52 r 3 of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Discovery Order
- Contempt of Court
- Civil Contempt
- Related Entities
- OFS China
- OFS Singapore
- Interlocutory Judgment
- Committal Proceedings
- Unless Order
- Related Party Documents
- Project Documents
15.2 Keywords
- Contempt
- Discovery
- Singapore
- Civil
- Breach
- Order
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Contempt | 90 |
| Breach of Discovery Order | 80 |
| Fiduciary Duties | 70 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
| Commercial Disputes | 50 |
| Company Law | 40 |
| Interlocutory Orders | 40 |
| Civil Procedure | 30 |
| Duty to Account | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Contempt of Court
- Civil Procedure
- Discovery
- Commercial Litigation