Goh Seng Heng v Wang Xiaopu: Appeal Against Contempt of Court Sentence for Withholding Information

In Goh Seng Heng v Wang Xiaopu, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal by Dr. Goh Seng Heng against a 7-day imprisonment sentence for contempt of court. The High Court had found Dr. Goh intentionally withheld information and lied about his inability to recall details regarding funds in a Chinese account, breaching a court order. The Court of Appeal, comprising Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA, Judith Prakash JCA, and Steven Chong JCA, dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the original sentencing and rejecting Dr. Goh's arguments for a lesser fine.

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

Ex Tempore Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Goh Seng Heng appeals a 7-day imprisonment sentence for contempt of court, arguing it was excessive. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the original sentencing.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Wang XiaopuRespondent, PlaintiffIndividualSentence UpheldWon
Goh Seng HengAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Goh Ming Li MichelleDefendantIndividualNeutralNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Judith PrakashJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Steven ChongJustice of the Court of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Jimmy Yim Wing KuenDrew & Napier LLC
Chloe Shobhana AjitDrew & Napier LLC
Dierdre Grace MorganDrew & Napier LLC
Lee Soong Yan, KevinDrew & Napier LLC
Chu Hua YiFC Legal Asia LLC
Goh Jia JieFC Legal Asia LLC
Tan Jinwen MarkFC Legal Asia LLC

4. Facts

  1. The appellant was ordered to account for funds paid into a specific account in China.
  2. The appellant stated he was unable to recall details of the account in an affidavit.
  3. The appellant later informed the Official Assignee that the money was used for business obligations.
  4. The appellant later claimed the funds were lost through gambling in Macau.
  5. The Judge found the appellant intentionally withheld information and lied to the court.
  6. The Judge imposed a sentence of seven days’ imprisonment on the appellant.
  7. The appellant appealed the sentence, arguing it was excessive.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Goh Seng Heng v Wang Xiaopu, Civil Appeal No 66 of 2021, [2022] SGCA 48

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Appellant declared bankrupt
ORC 3219 granted
Appellant filed July 2020 Affidavit
Appellant's legal team discharged
Respondent's counsel learned appellant informed Official Assignee about money in the Account
Appellant filed August 2020 Affidavit
Appellant claimed sums expended to Chinese businessmen
Respondent's counsel sought identities of Chinese businessmen
Appellant said he lost funds gambling in Macau during bankruptcy examination proceedings
Judge's decision in Wang Xiaopu v Goh Seng Heng and another [2021] SGHC 282
CA/CA 66/2021 filed
Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal

7. Legal Issues

  1. Contempt of Court
    • Outcome: The court found the appellant guilty of contempt of court for intentionally withholding information and lying to the court.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Breach of court order
      • Intentional withholding of information
      • False statements to the court
  2. Appropriateness of Sentence
    • Outcome: The court held that the sentence of seven days' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Mitigating factors
      • Precedents in sentencing for contempt of court

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against sentence
  2. Reduction of sentence to a fine

9. Cause of Actions

  • Contempt of Court

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Wang Xiaopu v Goh Seng Heng and anotherHigh CourtYes[2021] SGHC 282SingaporeThe Judge found that the appellant had intentionally withheld information from the respondent in breach of ORC 3219, and had aggravated this contempt by lying that he could not recall the information.
Ho Seow Wan v Ho Poey Wee and othersHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHC 304SingaporeCited by the appellant to suggest that a fine of $25,000–$30,000 would be sufficient, but distinguished by the court due to the prejudice to the respondent and the protracted and cynical manner of the appellant’s contempt.
Shanghai Afute Food and Beverage Management Co Ltd v Tan Swee Meng and anotherHigh CourtYes[2021] SGHC 149SingaporeCited by the appellant to suggest that a fine of $25,000–$30,000 would be sufficient, but distinguished by the court due to the prejudice to the respondent and the protracted and cynical manner of the appellant’s contempt.
Rohrlach, Nicholas Robert Adam v Qantas Airways Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2021] SGHC 281SingaporeCited by the appellant to suggest that his punishment of seven days’ imprisonment is excessive, but distinguished by the court due to the prejudice to the respondent and the protracted and cynical manner of the appellant’s contempt.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Contempt of court
  • Sentencing
  • Breach of court order
  • Withholding information
  • Affidavit
  • Bankruptcy
  • Mitigating factors

15.2 Keywords

  • Contempt of court
  • sentencing
  • appeal
  • Singapore
  • legal
  • judgment

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Contempt of Court95
Sentencing70
Duty to Account60
Judgments and Orders50

16. Subjects

  • Contempt of Court
  • Civil Procedure
  • Sentencing