BTS Tankers v Energy & Commodity: Contempt of Court for Failure to Comply with Discovery Orders
In a suit between BTS Tankers Pte Ltd (Plaintiff) and Energy & Commodity Pte Ltd, Vu Xuan Thu, D&N Trading & Consultancy Limited, and Dinh Thi Hoang Uyen (Defendants), the Singapore High Court addressed the Plaintiff's applications for committal of the Defendants for contempt of court and to strike out the Defences and Counterclaim of the Defendants. The Plaintiff's claims arose from an alleged unlawful conspiracy involving the smuggling of gasoil into Vietnam, resulting in the detention of the Plaintiff's vessel and significant damages. The Court granted both the Committal Application and the Striking Out Application, with suspension orders, due to the Defendants' repeated failures to comply with court orders for discovery and disclosure of assets.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Committal Application and Striking Out Application granted, both with suspension orders.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court found defendants in contempt of court for failing to comply with discovery orders related to a smuggling claim.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Energy & Commodity Pte Ltd | Defendant, Plaintiff in counterclaim | Corporation | Counterclaim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Vu Xuan Thu | Defendant | Individual | Committal Order Issued | Lost | |
| D&N Trading & Consultancy Limited | Defendant | Corporation | Interlocutory Judgment in Default of Defence | Lost | |
| Dinh Thi Hoang Uyen | Defendant | Individual | Committal Order Issued | Lost | |
| BTS Tankers Pte Ltd | Plaintiff, Defendant in counterclaim | Corporation | Committal Application Granted | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lai Siu Chiu | Senior Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiff claimed damages for unlawful conspiracy involving smuggling of gasoil into Vietnam.
- Plaintiff's vessel was detained in Vietnam for three years, causing loss and damage.
- Defendants failed to comply with numerous court orders requiring disclosure of documents and assets.
- Defendants provided false and misleading information in affidavits.
- VXT claimed he did not use a computer to run his business and had discarded his handphone.
- Dinh claimed she received large amounts of cash from Vietnamese associates and rich relatives.
- VXT and Dinh initially resisted producing their CPF statements.
5. Formal Citations
- BTS Tankers Pte Ltd v Energy & Commodity Pte Ltd and others, Suit No 844 of 2017 (Summonses Nos 3388 and 3689 of 2020), [2021] SGHC 58
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Vessel detained in Vietnam. | |
| Suit No 844 of 2017 filed. | |
| Vietnamese court issued a decision detailing DDHP's smuggling activities. | |
| First Mareva order obtained against ECPL, VXT and D&N. | |
| Dinh Thi Hoang Uyen joined as a party to the proceedings. | |
| Second Mareva order obtained against Dinh. | |
| Plaintiff obtained leave of court to apply for committal. | |
| First hearing. | |
| VXT and Dinh filed a joint affidavit. | |
| Committal Application and Striking Out Application granted. | |
| Stay of execution granted. | |
| Grounds of Decision issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Contempt of Court
- Outcome: The court found VXT and Dinh in contempt of court for intentionally disobeying court orders and failing to comply with their discovery obligations.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Intentional disobedience of court orders
- Failure to disclose assets
- Breach of Mareva injunction
- Striking Out Pleadings
- Outcome: The court granted the Striking Out Application, with an 'unless order', due to the defendants' repeated failures to comply with court orders.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Non-compliance with court orders
- Proportionality of sanction
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages
- Declaration that Dinh's assets are liable to execution
9. Cause of Actions
- Unlawful Conspiracy
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
- Discovery
- Injunctions
11. Industries
- Shipping
- Commodities Trading
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 standard of proof in contempt proceedings and the court's consideration of genuine attempts to comply with court orders. |
| Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd v Karaha Bodas Co LLC and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 518 | Singapore | Cited for the standard of proof in contempt proceedings. |
| OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP and others v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) and others | High Court | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 60 | Singapore | Cited as an example where a contemnor was sentenced to imprisonment for breaches of a Mareva injunction. |
| Toyota Tsusho (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Foo Tseh Wan and others | High Court | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 1215 | Singapore | Cited as an example where a contemnor was sentenced to imprisonment for flagrant disregard of discovery obligations in a Mareva Order. |
| Mitora Pte Ltd v Agritrade International (Pte) Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 1179 | Singapore | Cited for the guiding principles when a striking out application should be imposed. |
| Maruti Shipping Pte Ltd v Tay Sien Djim and others | High Court | Yes | [2014] SGHC 227 | Singapore | Cited to give an indication of the range of prison terms imposed by courts for contempt of court. |
| Precious Wishes Limited v Sinoble Metalloy International (Pte) Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2000] SGHC 5 | Singapore | Cited to give an indication of the range of prison terms imposed by courts for contempt of court. |
| Technigroup Far East Pte Ltd and another v v Jaswinderpal Singh s/o Bachint Singh and others | High Court | Yes | [2018] 3 SLR 1391 | Singapore | Cited to give an indication of the range of prison terms imposed by courts for contempt of court. |
| Cartier International BV v Lee Hock Lee and another application | High Court | Yes | [1992] 3 SLR(R) 340 | Singapore | Cited to give an indication of the range of prison terms imposed by courts for contempt of court. |
| Wong Ser Wan v Ng Bok Eng Holdings Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR (R) 365 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that bald assertions unsubstantiated by evidence are rejected by the court. |
| Ng Bok Eng Holdings Pte Ltd and another v Wong Ser Wan | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 4 SLR (R) 561 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that bald assertions unsubstantiated by evidence are rejected by the court. |
| Sun Electric Pte Ltd v Menrva Solutions Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2020] 4 SLR 978 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that exaggerated claims with no documentary evidence provided in support are rejected by the court. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Chapter 97) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Mareva Injunction
- Committal Application
- Striking Out Application
- Discovery Obligations
- Contempt of Court
- DDHP
- Gasoil Smuggling
- CPF
- Affidavit
- Unless Order
15.2 Keywords
- Contempt of Court
- Discovery
- Mareva Injunction
- Smuggling
- Singapore High Court
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Contempt of Court
- Discovery
- Injunctions