Sandipala v STMicroelectronics: Contempt of Court for Breaching Examination of Judgment Debtor Orders

In PT Sandipala Arthaputra v STMicroelectronics Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore found Paulus Tannos and Catherine Tannos guilty of contempt of court for breaching Examination of Judgment Debtor (EJD) Orders. The underlying case involved a contract dispute between PT Sandipala Arthaputra and Oxel Systems Pte Ltd, concerning the supply of microchips. Oxel Systems Pte Ltd had a counterclaim against PT Sandipala Arthaputra, Paulus Tannos, Catherine Tannos, and Lina Rawung. The court sentenced Paulus and Catherine Tannos to seven days' imprisonment each for their wilful breaches of the EJD Orders.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Paulus and Catherine Tannos found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to seven days' imprisonment each.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Paulus and Catherine Tannos were found guilty of contempt of court for breaching EJD orders and sentenced to imprisonment. The case involved a dispute over microchips.

1.7 Decision Date

29 January 2018

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Paulus Tannos	Defendant, Appellant	Individual	Guilty of contempt of court	Lost	Govintharash s/o Ramanathan of Gurbani & Co LLC Shafkat Fahmid Sifat of Gurbani & Co LLC
Lina Rawung	Defendant	Individual	Counterclaim Dismissed	Won
Catherine Tannos	Defendant, Appellant	Individual	Guilty of contempt of court	Lost	Govintharash s/o Ramanathan of Gurbani & Co LLC Shafkat Fahmid Sifat of Gurbani & Co LLC
PT Sandipala Arthaputra	Plaintiff, Defendant	Corporation	Claims Dismissed	Lost
Oxel Systems Pte Ltd	Defendant, Plaintiff	Corporation	Judgment on the counterclaim	Won	Jaikanth Shankar of Drew & Napier LLC Jaspreet Singh Sachdev of Drew & Napier LLC Lin Xianyang Timothy of Drew & Napier LLC Davinder Singh s/o Amar Singh of Drew & Napier LLC Low Wu Yang of Drew & Napier LLC
Vincent Pierre, Luc, Cousin	Defendant	Individual	Judgment for Defendant	Won
STMICROELECTRONICS ASIA PACIFIC PTE LTD	Defendant	Corporation	Judgment for Defendant	Won

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
George Wei	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Govintharash s/o Ramanathan	Gurbani & Co LLC
Shafkat Fahmid Sifat	Gurbani & Co LLC
Jaikanth Shankar	Drew & Napier LLC
Jaspreet Singh Sachdev	Drew & Napier LLC
Lin Xianyang Timothy	Drew & Napier LLC
Davinder Singh s/o Amar Singh	Drew & Napier LLC
Low Wu Yang	Drew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

PT Sandipala Arthaputra and Oxel Systems Pte Ltd entered into a contract for the supply of microchips.
Oxel Systems Pte Ltd counterclaimed against PT Sandipala Arthaputra, Paulus Tannos, Catherine Tannos, and Lina Rawung.
Paulus and Catherine Tannos were ordered to attend examination of judgment debtor hearings.
Paulus and Catherine Tannos failed to attend multiple examination of judgment debtor hearings.
Paulus and Catherine Tannos failed to provide answers to the EJD Questionnaires.
Paulus and Catherine Tannos claimed their failures were due to their bankruptcy in Indonesia.
The court found Paulus and Catherine Tannos guilty of contempt of court.

5. Formal Citations

PT Sandipala Arthaputra v STMicroelectronics Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and others, Suit No 542 of 2012(Summons No 5464 of 2017), [2018] SGHC 20

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2011-12-09	Contract entered into between PT Sandipala Arthaputra and Oxel Systems Pte Ltd.
2012-01-01	Paulus and his family relocated to Singapore.
2012-01-01	High Court Suit No 542 of 2012 filed.
2015-08-04	Ex parte anti-suit injunction granted.
2015-09-04	Final anti-suit injunction granted.
2015-12-04	Leave granted to ST-AP and Cousin to commence committal proceedings against Paulus and Catherine.
2016-02-03	Anti-suit injunction upheld on appeal.
2016-03-14	Substantive Proceedings due to commence.
2017-02-22	Paulus and Catherine declared bankrupt in Indonesia.
2017-05-12	Substantive Judgment delivered; Sandipala's claims dismissed.
2017-05-22	EJD hearing for costs of anti-suit injunction adjourned.
2017-05-24	Oxel sent a letter of demand to the judgment debtors.
2017-06-02	Oxel filed Summons No 2543 of 2017 for the examination of Paulus and Catherine as judgment debtors.
2017-06-05	EJD 1 was granted.
2017-06-12	Sandipala, Paulus and Catherine filed their appeal against the Substantive Judgment.
2017-06-12	Paulus attended the EJD hearing for costs arising from the anti-suit injunction application.
2017-07-24	Paulus was absent from the EJD hearing.
2017-08-21	Court ordered Paulus and Catherine to attend for an EJD hearing on 25 September 2017.
2017-08-25	Paulus failed to attend the EJD hearing.
2017-08-30	Oxel applied for leave to serve the 21 August 2017 order and questionnaires by way of substituted service on G&C.
2017-09-05	Court granted Oxel’s application for substituted service.
2017-09-06	Settlement reached between Sandipala and ST-AP and Cousin regarding the committal proceedings.
2017-09-08	Oxel effected substituted service of the 21 August 2017 order on G&C and enclosed the EJD Questionnaires.
2017-09-25	Paulus and Catherine failed to attend the EJD hearing.
2017-10-06	Oxel served the 25 September 2017 order by letter and attachments to G&C, endorsed with the penal notice.
2017-10-09	Judgment debtors filed the Stay Application.
2017-10-11	Paulus and Catherine failed to appear at the EJD hearing.
2017-10-24	Oxel served the 11 October 2017 order by letter and attachments to G&C, endorsed with the penal notice and enclosing the EJD Questionnaires.
2017-10-31	Oxel applied for leave to commence committal proceedings (Summons No 4987 of 2017).
2017-11-01	Paulus and Catherine were again absent at the EJD hearing.
2017-11-10	Oxel filed its second application for leave to commence committal proceedings (Summons No 5174 of 2017).
2017-11-27	Court dismissed the Stay Application, and granted leave for Oxel to commence the committal proceedings.
2017-11-27	Catherine files her fifth affidavit setting out reasons why she was unable to attend the EJD hearings.
2017-11-27	Paulus and Catherine provided answers to the EJD Questionnaires.
2017-12-01	Paulus and Catherine were absent at the EJD hearing.
2017-12-06	Paulus filed his 48th affidavit.
2017-12-29	Paulus and Catherine attended the EJD hearing.
2018-01-09	Paulus filed his 50th affidavit.
2018-01-12	Court heard the application for committal. Paulus and Catherine attended the hearing.
2018-01-15	Commencement of custodial sentence of seven days’ imprisonment each, with costs.

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Examination of Judgment Debtor Orders
- Outcome: The court found Paulus and Catherine Tannos guilty of breaching the EJD Orders.
- Category: Substantive
Contempt of Court
- Outcome: The court found Paulus and Catherine Tannos guilty of contempt of court.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Order of Committal

9. Cause of Actions

Contempt of Court

10. Practice Areas

Litigation
Contempt Proceedings

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
PT Sandipala Arthaputra v STMicroElectronics Asia Pacific and others	High Court	Yes	[2017] SGHC 102	Singapore	Sets out the complete facts of the substantive proceedings.
PT Sandipala Arthaputra v STMicroElectronics Asia Pacific and others	High Court	Yes	[2017] SGHC 191	Singapore	Supplemental judgment on interest.
Pertamina Energy Trading v Karaha Bodas Co Ltd and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR(R) 518	Singapore	Cited for the rationale for the law of contempt, rooted in the public interest.
STX Corp v Jason Surjana Tanuwidjaja and others	High Court	Yes	[2014] 2 SLR 1261	Singapore	Cited for the purpose of civil contempt, which is to secure compliance with the said Order, to specifically and generally deter contemptuous behaviour and to protect and preserve the authority of the Singapore courts.
Global Distressed Alpha Fund I Ltd Partnership v PT Bakrie Investindo	High Court	Yes	[2013] SGHC 105	Singapore	Cited for the purpose of civil contempt, which is to secure compliance with the said Order, to specifically and generally deter contemptuous behaviour and to protect and preserve the authority of the Singapore courts.
Monex Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v E-Clearing (Singapore) Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2012] 4 SLR 1169	Singapore	Cited for the two-step approach in determining whether the alleged contemnor’s conduct amounts to contempt of court.
Tan Beow Hiong v Tan Boon Aik	High Court	Yes	[2010] 4 SLR 870	Singapore	Cited for the low threshold to establish the necessary mens rea for a finding of contempt of court.
Mok Kah Hong v Zheng Zhuan Yao	High Court	Yes	[2016] 3 SLR 1	Singapore	Cited for the knowledge of the existence of the order and its material terms.
Tahir v Tay Kar Oon	High Court	Yes	[2016] 3 SLR 296	Singapore	Cited for disobedience of an EJD order by failing to attend an EJD hearing amounts to a contempt of court.
Tay Kar Oon v Tahir	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 342	Singapore	Cited for disobedience of an EJD order by failing to attend an EJD hearing amounts to a contempt of court.
Sembcorp Marine Ltd v Aurol Anthony Sabastian	High Court	Yes	[2013] 1 SLR 245	Singapore	Cited for the principle that committal to prison is usually a measure of last resort.
Cartier International BV v Lee Hock Lee	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1992] 3 SLR(R) 340	Singapore	Cited as an aggravating factor where the contemnor procured third parties to commit the contemptuous act.
Precious Wishes Ltd v Sinoble Metalloy International (Pte) Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2000] SGHC 5	Singapore	Cited as a precedent where a custodial sentence was found appropriate.
Re Tan Khee Eng, John	High Court	Yes	[1997] 1 SLR(R) 870	Singapore	Cited as a precedent where a custodial sentence was found appropriate.
Re Ho Kok Cheong Bankruptcy No 1235 of 1987	High Court	Yes	[1995] SGHC 121	Singapore	Cited as a precedent where a custodial sentence was found appropriate.
OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP and others v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) and others	High Court	Yes	[2005] 3 SLR 60	Singapore	Cited as a case where a custodial sentence of six months was imposed.
Maruti Shipping Pte Ltd v Tay Sien Djim and others	High Court	Yes	[2014] SGHC 227	Singapore	Cited as a case where a substantial term of six months’ imprisonment was imposed.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 52 r 2(2) of the Rules of Court
O 45 r 5(1) of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016	Singapore
Section 4(1) of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016	Singapore
Section 35(1) of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016	Singapore
Section 7(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act	Singapore
Section 7(3) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act	Singapore
Section 8(2) of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016	Singapore
Section 21 of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016	Singapore
Section 28 of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016	Singapore
Section 29 of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016	Singapore
Section 12 of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016	Singapore
ss 8(1) and (3) of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Examination of Judgment Debtor Orders
EJD Orders
Contempt of Court
Substituted Service
Committal Proceedings
Bankruptcy
Penal Notice

15.2 Keywords

Contempt of Court
Examination of Judgment Debtor
EJD Orders
Breach of Order
Committal Proceedings

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Contempt of Court	90
Civil Contempt	90
Judgments and Orders	70
Civil Procedure	60

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Contempt of Court