Li Shengwu v Attorney-General: Jurisdiction over Foreign Contemnor, Scandalising Contempt

In Li Shengwu v Attorney-General, the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed the High Court's jurisdiction over a foreign contemnor in a scandalising contempt case. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court's subject-matter jurisdiction is founded on its inherent jurisdiction, with personal jurisdiction established through proper service of committal papers under s 16 of the Supreme Court Judicature Act and Order 11 Rule 1(n) of the Rules of Court.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore Court of Appeal judgment on jurisdiction over foreign contemnors in scandalising contempt cases. Appeal dismissed.

1.7 Decision Date

31 March 2019

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
The Attorney-General	Respondent, Applicant	Government Agency	Appeal Upheld	Won	Tan Zhongshan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Francis Ng Yong Kiat of Attorney-General’s Chambers Tan Sze Yao of Attorney-General’s Chambers Elaine Liew Ling Wei of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Li Shengwu	Appellant, Respondent	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Vergis S Abraham of Providence Law Asia LLC Asiyah binte Ahmad Arif of Providence Law Asia LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Sundaresh Menon	Chief Justice	No
Tay Yong Kwang	Justice of the Court of Appeal	No
Steven Chong	Justice of the Court of Appeal	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Tan Zhongshan	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Francis Ng Yong Kiat	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Tan Sze Yao	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Elaine Liew Ling Wei	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Vergis S Abraham	Providence Law Asia LLC
Asiyah binte Ahmad Arif	Providence Law Asia LLC

4. Facts

On 15 July 2017, the appellant published a post on his Facebook page stating that “the Singapore government is very litigious and has a pliant court system”.
The Attorney-General considered the appellant’s post to have been made in contempt of court.
The Attorney-General asked the appellant to purge his contempt by deleting the material, making a written apology, and undertaking not to republish similar material.
The appellant did not comply with the Attorney-General’s request.
The Attorney-General commenced proceedings for leave to apply for an order of committal against the appellant.
Leave was granted to serve the committal papers on the appellant out of jurisdiction.
The appellant applied to set aside the service of the committal papers.

5. Formal Citations

Li Shengwu v The Attorney-General, Civil Appeal No 166 of 2018, [2019] SGCA 20

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2017-07-15	Appellant published a Facebook post.
2017-07-17	Appellant clarified his Facebook post.
2017-07-21	Attorney-General informed appellant his post was contemptuous.
2017-07-27	Appellant requested an extension to respond.
2017-08-04	Attorney-General commenced proceedings for committal order.
2017-08-04	Appellant stated the post was misinterpreted.
2017-08-08	Attorney-General notified appellant of filed proceedings.
2017-08-10	Appellant acknowledged receipt of Attorney-General's letter.
2017-08-16	Attorney-General notified appellant of hearing date.
2017-08-21	High Court granted leave to apply for committal order.
2017-09-27	Attorney-General applied to serve committal papers out of jurisdiction.
2017-10-17	Committal papers served on appellant in the United States.
2017-12-22	Appellant applied to set aside service of committal papers.
2018-03-26	Judge dismissed application to set aside service.
2018-05-28	Judge dismissed application for leave to appeal.
2018-09-03	Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal.
2019-01-18	Court hearing.
2019-04-01	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Jurisdiction over Foreign Contemnor
- Outcome: The court held that the High Court's subject-matter jurisdiction to hear contempt cases is founded on its inherent jurisdiction, and personal jurisdiction over a foreign contemnor is established through proper service of committal papers in compliance with Order 11 of the Rules of Court.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
  - Service out of jurisdiction
  - Statutory basis for jurisdiction
  - Inherent jurisdiction of the court
Retrospective Application of Procedural Rules
- Outcome: The court held that Order 11 r 1(t) does not apply retroactively.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Application of Order 11 r 1(t) retroactively

8. Remedies Sought

Order of Committal

9. Cause of Actions

Contempt of Court

10. Practice Areas

Civil Litigation
Appellate Practice

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
ARW v Comptroller of Income Tax and another and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] SGCA 85	Singapore	Cited to support the principle that the Attorney-General is the guardian of the public interest.
Deepak Sharma v Law Society of Singapore	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 672	Singapore	Cited to support the principle that the Attorney-General is the guardian of the public interest.
Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 1 SLR 345	Singapore	Cited to support the principle that the Attorney-General is the guardian of the public interest.
Aurol Anthony Sabastian v Sembcorp Marine Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 2 SLR 246	Singapore	Cited for the Attorney-General's role as guardian of the public interest in contempt cases and the nature of criminal contempt.
Shadrake Alan v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 3 SLR 778	Singapore	Cited to support the quasi-criminal nature of scandalising contempt and the purpose of contempt law.
Mok Kah Hong v Zheng Zhuan Yao	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 3 SLR 1	Singapore	Cited to support the quasi-criminal nature of civil contempt and the standard of proof required.
Tay Kar Oon v Tahir	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 342	Singapore	Cited to support the public interest dimension of civil contempt and the court's power to act against a contemnor.
Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd v Karaha Bodas Co LLC and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR(R) 518	Singapore	Cited to support the standard of proof in contempt proceedings and the purpose of contempt law.
Summit Holdings Ltd and another v Business Software Alliance	High Court	Yes	[1999] 2 SLR(R) 592	Singapore	Cited to support the nature of an Order 52 statement.
Grace Electrical Engineering Pte Ltd v Te Deum Engineering Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 1 SLR 76	Singapore	Cited regarding the scope and ambit of Order 57 r 9A(4)(b).
Abhilash s/o Kunchian Krishnan v Yeo Hock Huat and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] SGCA 14	Singapore	Cited regarding the scope and ambit of Order 57 r 9A(4)(b).
L Capital Jones and another v Maniach Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 1 SLR 312	Singapore	Cited regarding the scope of Order 57 r 9A(5).
Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 4 SLR 331	Singapore	Departed from regarding the scope of Order 57 r 9A(5).
Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 3 SLR 258	Singapore	Cited to draw a distinction between the courts’ inherent jurisdiction and inherent powers.
L’Office Cherifien des Phosphates v Yamashita-Shinnihon Steamship Co Ltd	House of Lords	Yes	[1994] 1 AC 486	United Kingdom	Cited regarding the principles governing the retrospective application of legislation.
O’Shea v O’Shea and Parnell	English Court of Appeal	Yes	(1890) 15 PD 59	England and Wales	Cited to illuminate the distinction between criminal contempt and civil contempt.
R v Barnardo	English Court of Appeal	Yes	(1889) 23 QB 305	England and Wales	Cited to illuminate the distinction between criminal contempt and civil contempt.
R v Lefroy	Court of Queen’s Bench	Yes	(1873) LR 134 (QB)	England and Wales	Cited regarding the inherent jurisdiction of superior courts.
Seaward v Paterson	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1897] 1 Ch 545	England and Wales	Cited regarding the inherent right to punish conduct that obstructs the course of justice.
Gilbert Ahnee and others v Director of Public Prosecutions	Judicial Committee of the Privy Council	Yes	[1999] 2 AC 294	Mauritius	Cited regarding the inherent power to punish for contempt.
Re Colina and another, ex parte Torney	High Court of Australia	Yes	[1999] 200 CLR 386	Australia	Cited regarding the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
E M Sankaran Namboodripad v T Narayanan Nambiar	Indian Supreme Court	Yes	(1970) 2 SCC 325	India	Cited regarding the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
Re Abdul Aziz’s Application	Supreme Court	Yes	(1962) 28 MLJ 64	Singapore	Discussed regarding the use of civil procedure rules in cases of criminal contempt.
R v The Council of the Metropolitan Borough of Poplar	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1922] 1 KB 95	England and Wales	Discussed regarding the failure to serve the rule nisi for attachment.
Burgundy Global Exploration Corp v Transocean Offshore International Ventures Ltd and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 3 SLR 381	Singapore	Cited regarding the effect of service in compliance with Order 11.
Amin Rasheed Shipping Corporation v Kuwait Insurance Co	House of Lords	Yes	[1984] AC 50	United Kingdom	Cited regarding the exorbitant jurisdiction exercised by a court over a foreign corporation.
ABU v Comptroller of Income Tax	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 2 SLR 420	Singapore	Cited regarding the retrospective application of legislation.
Multistar Holdings Ltd v Geocon Piling & Engineering Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 2 SLR 1	Singapore	Cited regarding the definition of a cause of action.
Amrad Operations Pty Ltd v Genelabs Technologies Inc	Federal Court of Australia	Yes	[1999] FCA 633	Australia	Cited regarding the enforcement of a written law.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Energia SRL (No 4)	Federal Court of Australia	Yes	[2012] FCA 1323	Australia	Cited regarding the enforcement of a written law.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v April International Marketing Services Australia Pty Ltd	Federal Court of Australia	Yes	[2009] FCA 735	Australia	Cited regarding the enforcement of a written law.
Zoom Communications Ltd v Broadcast Solutions Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 4 SLR 500	Singapore	Cited regarding the requirements for valid service out of jurisdiction.
Bradley Lomas Electrolok Ltd and another v Colt Ventilation East Asia Pte Ltd and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 3 SLR(R) 1156	Singapore	Cited regarding the standard of proof for establishing jurisdiction.
Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 1 SLR 659	Singapore	Cited regarding the application of the ejusdem generis principle.
Tassell v Hallen	Queen's Bench Division	Yes	[1892] 1 QB 321	England and Wales	Cited regarding the disjunctive nature of the limbs of Order 11.
Attorney-General v Zimmerman Fred and others	High Court	Yes	[1985–1986] SLR(R) 476	Singapore	Cited as a case where the courts have tried cases of contempt and imposed penalties on foreign contemnors.
Attorney-General v Wain Barry J and others	High Court	Yes	[1991] 1 SLR(R) 85	Singapore	Cited as a case where the courts have tried cases of contempt and imposed penalties on foreign contemnors.
Attorney-General v Lingle and others	High Court	Yes	[1995] 1 SLR(R) 199	Singapore	Cited as a case where the courts have tried cases of contempt and imposed penalties on foreign contemnors.
Attorney-General v Hertzberg Daniel and others	High Court	Yes	[2009] 1 SLR(R) 1103	Singapore	Cited as a case where the courts have tried cases of contempt and imposed penalties on foreign contemnors.
Attorney-General v Pang Cheng Lian and others	High Court	Yes	[1974–1976] SLR(R) 271	Singapore	Cited as a case dealing with scandalising contempt.
Attorney-General v Wong Hong Toy	High Court	Yes	[1983–1984] SLR(R) 34	Singapore	Cited as a case dealing with scandalising contempt.
Attorney-General v Chee Soon Juan	High Court	Yes	[2006] 2 SLR(R) 650	Singapore	Cited as a case dealing with scandalising contempt.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 11 r 1
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 11 r 1(n)
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 11 r 1(s)
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 11 r 1(t)
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 11 r 1(p)
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 52
Rules of the Supreme Court 1970 (GN No S 274/1970) O 52 r 3(3)
Singapore Rules of Court 1996 (GN No S 71/1996) O 52 r 3(4)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 7	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 16	Singapore
Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (Cap 190A, 2001 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 (No 19 of 2016)	Singapore
Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act (Cap 325, 2003 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Foreign Contemnor
Service Out of Jurisdiction
Inherent Jurisdiction
Substantive Jurisdiction
Personal Jurisdiction
Committal Papers
Scandalising Contempt
Quasi-Criminal
Originating Summons
Rules of Court
Supreme Court of Judicature Act

15.2 Keywords

Contempt
Jurisdiction
Foreign Contemnor
Singapore
Civil Procedure
Service

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Contempt of Court	85
Civil Practice	75
Litigation	60
Appellate Practice	60
Criminal Procedure	40
Asset Recovery	20
Administrative Law	20

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Contempt of Court
Jurisdiction
Service Out of Jurisdiction