Ong Wui Teck v Attorney-General: Contempt of Court for Scandalising the Court and Contempt in the Face of the Court
In Ong Wui Teck v Attorney-General, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard appeals by Mr. Ong Wui Teck against the High Court's decision finding him guilty of scandalising contempt and contempt in the face of the court. The charges stemmed from allegations of bias, dishonesty, and impropriety he made against Justice Woo Bih Li in affidavits filed in support of a recusal application. The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, upholding the High Court's finding of liability and the sentence of seven days' imprisonment.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeals dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Ong Wui Teck was found guilty of contempt of court for scandalising the court and contempt in the face of the court. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeals against liability and sentence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Attorney-General | Respondent, Applicant | Government Agency | Appeals dismissed | Won | Khoo Boo Jin of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lee Hui Min of Attorney-General’s Chambers Ashley Ong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Elaine Liew of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ong Wui Teck | Appellant, Respondent | Individual | Appeals dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Judith Prakash | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
| Steven Chong | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Quentin Loh | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Khoo Boo Jin | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lee Hui Min | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ashley Ong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Elaine Liew | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Ong Wui Teck filed affidavits containing allegations of bias against Justice Woo Bih Li.
- The Attorney-General applied for an order of committal against Ong Wui Teck for contempt of court.
- The High Court found Ong Wui Teck guilty of scandalising contempt and contempt in the face of the Court.
- The allegations were made in support of a recusal application.
- The High Court sentenced Ong Wui Teck to seven days’ imprisonment.
- The appellant was the administrator of the estates of his father and of his mother.
- The appellant had been involved in various disputes with his sister concerning the Father’s Estate.
5. Formal Citations
- Ong Wui Teck v Attorney-General, Civil Appeal Nos 33 and 112 of 2019, [2020] SGCA 17
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Suit No 385 of 2011 filed concerning the Father’s Estate | |
| Sister sought a revocation of the appellant’s appointment as the executor of the Mother’s Estate | |
| Woo J’s grounds of decision can be found in Ong Wui Soon v Ong Wui Teck [2013] 1 SLR 733 | |
| Woo J fixed costs of Suit 385 at $10,000 in favour of the Sister | |
| Woo J heard the Registrar’s Appeals | |
| Sister appealed to the High Court by District Court Appeal No 21 of 2015 (“DCA 21”) | |
| Appellant and the Sister’s counsel attended a pre-trial conference in the High Court | |
| Appellant sent a letter to the Chief Justice of Singapore, alleging that Woo J’s “independence is compromised” | |
| Appellant filed OS 165 seeking an order that Woo J be recused | |
| Woo J heard OS 165 and recused himself | |
| Respondent informed the appellant that the Allegations made in the OS 165 Affidavits were in contempt of court | |
| Committal proceedings were heard in the High Court | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment date |
7. Legal Issues
- Scandalising Contempt
- Outcome: The court found the appellant guilty of scandalising contempt.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2011] 3 SLR 778
- [2016] 1 SLR 992
- Contempt in the Face of the Court
- Outcome: The court found the appellant guilty of contempt in the face of the court.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2007] 4 SLR(R) 17
- [1999] 6 MLJ 38
- [2006] 2 SLR(R) 650
- Fair Criticism
- Outcome: The court held that the appellant's allegations did not constitute fair criticism.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2009] 2 SLR(R) 1132
8. Remedies Sought
- Order of committal
- Imprisonment
9. Cause of Actions
- Contempt of Court
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ong Wui Soon v Ong Wui Teck | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 733 | Singapore | Cited for the grounds of decision in Suit 385 concerning the Father’s Estate. |
| Ong Wui Swoon v Ong Wui Teck and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2014] SGHC 157 | Singapore | Cited for the grounds of decision regarding the Registrar’s Appeals. |
| Ong Wui Teck v Ong Wui Swoon | High Court | Yes | [2016] 2 SLR 1067 | Singapore | Cited for Woo J’s reasoning for recusal. |
| Attorney-General v Ong Wui Teck | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 30 | Singapore | Cited for the High Court Judge’s reasons for finding the appellant guilty of contempt. |
| Attorney-General v Ong Wui Teck | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 147 | Singapore | Cited for the High Court Judge’s reasons for sentencing the appellant. |
| Shadrake Alan v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 778 | Singapore | Cited for the applicable law and principles in respect of liability for scandalising contempt. |
| Au Wai Pang v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 992 | Singapore | Cited for the applicable law and principles in respect of liability for scandalising contempt. |
| Attorney-General v Tan Liang Joo John | High Court | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 1132 | Singapore | Cited for the factors that the Court may consider in order to determine whether the Allegations constitute fair criticism. |
| Attorney-General v Wham Kwok Han Jolovan and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 222 | Singapore | Cited regarding the potential audience of the alleged contemnor for the conduct in question. |
| You Xin v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 17 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of contempt in the face of the Court. |
| Koperasi Serbaguna Taiping Barat Bhd v Lim Joo Thong | High Court | Yes | [1999] 6 MLJ 38 | Malaysia | Cited for the definition of contempt in the face of the Court. |
| Attorney-General v Chee Soon Juan | High Court | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 650 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of contempt in the face of the Court. |
| Secretary for Justice v Choy Bing Wing | High Court | Yes | [2005] HKCU 1726 | Hong Kong | Cited as sentencing precedent. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Contempt of court
- Scandalising contempt
- Contempt in the face of the court
- Recusal application
- Allegations of bias
- Fair criticism
- Judicial impartiality
- OS 165 Affidavits
15.2 Keywords
- Contempt
- Scandalising
- Court
- Bias
- Recusal
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Contempt of Court | 95 |
| Scandalising the court | 80 |
| Contempt in the face of the court | 75 |
| Sentencing | 65 |
| Civil Procedure | 60 |
| Evidence Law | 50 |
| Appellate Practice | 40 |
| Administrative Law | 30 |
| Wills and Probate | 10 |
| Corporate Law | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Contempt of Court
- Judicial Review