Tay Yun Chwan Henry v Chan Siew Lee Jannie: Contempt of Court for Breaching Consent Judgment

In Tay Yun Chwan Henry v Chan Siew Lee Jannie, the High Court of Singapore addressed the plaintiff's application to lift the suspension of a committal order against the defendant for contempt of court. The defendant had breached a consent judgment by sending harassing and defamatory emails, and by failing to provide proof of psychiatric treatment as required by the suspension terms. The court, finding the defendant in breach of the conditions, lifted the suspension and imposed the original sentence of two weeks' imprisonment. The plaintiff's claim was for defamation and harassment.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Suspension on the Committal Order lifted; original sentence of two weeks’ imprisonment imposed on the defendant.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court found Chan Siew Lee Jannie in contempt of court for breaching a consent judgment by sending harassing and defamatory emails, leading to the lifting of a suspended committal order.

1.7 Decision Date

16 August 2018

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Tay Yun Chwan Henry	Plaintiff	Individual	Application granted	Won	Chelva Retnam Rajah of Tan Rajah & Cheah Chia Ru Yun Megan Joan of Tan Rajah & Cheah Wong Zhan Yan Perry Elizabeth of Tan Rajah & Cheah
Chan Siew Lee Jannie	Defendant	Individual	Suspension on the Committal Order lifted	Lost	Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam of Eugene Thuraisingam LLP Syazana Binte Yahya of Eugene Thuraisingam LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Hoo Sheau Peng	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Chelva Retnam Rajah	Tan Rajah & Cheah
Chia Ru Yun Megan Joan	Tan Rajah & Cheah
Wong Zhan Yan Perry Elizabeth	Tan Rajah & Cheah
Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam	Eugene Thuraisingam LLP
Syazana Binte Yahya	Eugene Thuraisingam LLP

4. Facts

The plaintiff and defendant are divorced and were co-founders of The Hour Glass Limited.
The defendant sent numerous emails containing defamatory allegations against the plaintiff.
The defendant was subject to Interlocutory Injunction Orders and Undertakings to cease harassing and defaming the plaintiff.
The defendant breached the Interlocutory Injunction Orders and Undertakings, leading to committal proceedings.
A Consent Judgment was entered restraining the defendant from harassing and defaming the plaintiff.
The defendant breached the Consent Judgment by sending further emails.
A Committal Order was made against the defendant, but its execution was suspended on conditions.
The defendant breached the conditions of the suspended Committal Order by sending Facebook posts and emails and failing to provide proof of psychiatric treatment.

5. Formal Citations

Tay Yun Chwan Henry v Chan Siew Lee Jannie, Originating Summons No 203 of 2017 (Summons No 250 of 2018), [2018] SGHC 181

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2010-08-01	Parties divorced.
2012-04-01	Plaintiff entered into a romantic relationship with a lady friend.
2013-11-01	Defendant began sending emails to various recipients.
2014-09-22	Statement of Claim filed.
2014-09-01	Defendant stopped sending emails to various recipients.
2014-12-05	Interlocutory Injunction Orders made.
2014-12-06	Defendant continued to send emails in breach of the orders.
2015-01-12	Interlocutory Injunction Orders personally served on the defendant.
2015-02-25	Plaintiff applied for an order of committal against the defendant.
2015-04-21	Defendant apologized for the emails sent.
2015-04-28	Undertakings recorded by the court.
2015-05-04	Defendant sent emails in breach of the Undertakings.
2015-05-30	Defendant sent emails in breach of the Undertakings.
2015-06-22	Fresh committal proceedings filed.
2015-08-05	Defendant found to be in contempt of court and sentenced to a fine.
2016-02-15	Settlement recorded in the Consent Judgment.
2016-03-17	Defendant committed multiple breaches of the Consent Judgment.
2017-02-06	Defendant committed multiple breaches of the Consent Judgment.
2017-02-24	Plaintiff commenced proceedings for leave to apply for an order of committal against the defendant.
2017-04-11	Plaintiff applied for an order of committal against the defendant.
2017-04-13	Defendant sent emails in breach of the Consent Judgment.
2017-06-17	Dr Joshua Kua Hai Kiat prepared a psychiatric report.
2017-07-02	Defendant sent emails in breach of the Consent Judgment.
2017-08-02	Committal Order made and suspended.
2017-08-03	Defendant posted comments on Facebook pages.
2017-08-04	Defendant posted comments on Facebook pages.
2017-08-24	TRC wrote to ET to demand that the offending comments be deleted.
2017-09-15	Plaintiff demanded that the defendant publish an apology.
2017-09-16	ET advised the defendant that the comments she had made on Facebook were in breach of Order 1(a) of the Consent Judgment.
2017-09-28	ET wrote to TRC stating the defendant’s position that the Facebook comments were not intended as an attack against the plaintiff.
2017-09-28	Defendant’s Facebook comments had been deleted.
2017-09-28	Defendant continued to send emails to various recipients.
2017-10-04	TRC sent letters to ET stating the plaintiff’s position that the defendant’s emails were sent in breach of the Consent Judgment.
2017-11-08	TRC sent letters to ET stating the plaintiff’s position that the defendant’s emails were sent in breach of the Consent Judgment.
2017-11-15	Dr Kua prepared a second psychiatric report.
2018-01-11	Defendant sent emails allegedly in breach of Order 1(a) to various recipients.
2018-01-11	Defendant sent emails to the plaintiff and/or TRC allegedly in breach of Order 1(b) and Order 1(c).
2018-01-15	Plaintiff filed the application to lift the suspension of the Committal Order.
2018-01-17	Defendant was informed of the application by her solicitors.
2018-01-17	Defendant sent emails allegedly in breach of Order 1(a) to various recipients.
2018-04-12	Defendant sent emails to the plaintiff and/or TRC allegedly in breach of Order 1(b) and Order 1(c).
2018-04-23	Suspension of the Committal Order lifted.
2018-08-17	Reasons in full given.

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Consent Judgment
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant had breached the Consent Judgment by sending harassing and defamatory emails and lifted the suspension of the committal order.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Violation of restraining orders
  - Sending harassing emails
  - Publishing defamatory statements
- Related Cases:
  - [2016] 3 SLR 1
Lifting Suspension of Committal Order
- Outcome: The court lifted the suspension of the committal order after finding that the defendant had breached the conditions of the suspension.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Breach of conditions for suspension
  - Sufficiency of evidence for breach
- Related Cases:
  - [2010] 4 SLR 870
Relevance of Psychiatric Condition to Contempt
- Outcome: The court gave some mitigating weight to the defendant’s psychiatric condition but found that it did not absolve her of liability for her acts.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Impact of mental state on liability
  - Mitigating factors in sentencing

8. Remedies Sought

Order of Committal
Lifting of Suspension of Committal Order
Costs

9. Cause of Actions

Contempt of Court
Defamation
Harassment

10. Practice Areas

Civil Litigation

11. Industries

Retail
Luxury Goods

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Mok Kah Hong v Zheng Zhuan Yao	High Court	Yes	[2016] 3 SLR 1	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the motive or intention of the party who has acted in breach of an order is strictly irrelevant to the issue of liability, though these may be relevant in sentencing.
Sembcorp Marine Ltd v Aurol Anthony Sabastian	High Court	Yes	[2013] 1 SLR 245	Singapore	Cited for the factors to be considered in sentencing for contempt of court.
Global Distressed Alpha Fund I Ltd Partnership v PT Bakrie Investindo	High Court	No	[2013] SGHC 105	Singapore	Referred to regarding the sentence of imprisonment imposed where the contemnor had repeatedly failed to attend court.
Tan Beow Hiong v Tan Boon Aik	High Court	Yes	[2010] 4 SLR 870	Singapore	Cited regarding the burden of proof in an application under O 52 r 6(3) of the ROC and the low threshold of mens rea for civil contempt.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Contempt of court
Consent Judgment
Committal Order
Interlocutory Injunction Orders
Defamation
Harassment
Psychiatric treatment
Breach of conditions
Suspension of committal order
Facebook posts
Emails

15.2 Keywords

Contempt
Injunction
Defamation
Harassment
Email
Facebook
Psychiatric Treatment
Singapore
High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Contempt of Court	95
Civil Practice	60
Libel, Slander and Defamation	40
Harassment	35
Civil Procedure	30
Criminal Procedure	20

16. Subjects

Contempt of Court
Civil Procedure
Family Law
Defamation
Harassment