CoShield Global v Krittapaj Sorralump: Civil Contempt & Impecunious Judgment Debtor

In CoShield Global Pty Ltd and others v Krittapaj Sorralump [2023] SGHC 319, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore dismissed an application for committal against Krittapaj Sorralump for non-compliance with an interim and final consent judgment. The applicants, CoShield Global Pty Ltd, CoShield Global Trading Limited, and CoShield NZ Limited, sought to commit the defendant for failing to pay US$12 million as ordered in the final consent judgment. Justice Choo Han Teck held that committal proceedings were inappropriate in this case because the defendant was in a position analogous to an impecunious judgment debtor due to restrictions imposed by a Worldwide Mareva Injunction and investigations by the Commercial Affairs Department of the Singapore Police Force.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court dismisses committal application against an impecunious judgment debtor, Krittapaj Sorralump, for non-compliance with consent judgments.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
CoShield Global Pty LtdApplicantCorporationApplication DismissedLost
CoShield Global Trading LimitedApplicantCorporationApplication DismissedLost
CoShield NZ LimitedApplicantCorporationApplication DismissedLost
Krittapaj SorralumpDefendantIndividualApplication DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Muhammad Imran Bin Abdul RahimEldan Law LLP
Raheja Binte JamaluddinEldan Law LLP
Uthayasurian s/o SidambaramPhoenix Law Corporation
Sofia Bennita d/o Mohamed BakhashPhoenix Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. The applicants sued the defendant for fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentations that induced them to buy nitrile gloves.
  2. The applicants obtained an interim consent judgment against the defendant.
  3. The parties engaged in further negotiations and obtained a final consent judgment.
  4. The defendant did not comply with some of the orders in the final consent judgment.
  5. The defendant has assets in Thailand, but it is too difficult for the applicants to enforce the judgment there.
  6. The defendant facilitated the transfer of his Marina One Residence to the liquidators of Nakawat Singapore.
  7. The defendant is currently unemployed and unable to do business due to investigations against him by the Commercial Affairs Department.

5. Formal Citations

  1. CoShield Global Pty Ltd and othersvKrittapaj Sorralump, Originating Application No 666 of 2023, [2023] SGHC 319

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Applicants sued the defendant for fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentations.
Nakawat Singapore was wound up.
Interim consent judgment obtained.
Final consent judgment obtained.
Deadline for defendant to provide security of US$2m in the form of a banker’s guarantee.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Civil Contempt
    • Outcome: The court held that committal proceedings were inappropriate in this case because the defendant was in a position analogous to that of an impecunious judgment debtor.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2017] 2 SLR 342
      • [2016] 3 SLR 1
  2. Enforcement of Monetary Judgments
    • Outcome: The court held that committal proceedings may not be appropriate for all situations where a judgment creditor seeks to enforce a monetary judgment, especially against an impecunious judgment debtor.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2016] 3 SLR 1

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Committal
  2. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Fraudulent Misrepresentation
  • Negligent Misrepresentation
  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Personal Protection Equipment

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Tay Kar Oon v TahirCourt of AppealYes[2017] 2 SLR 342SingaporeCited for the principle that a defendant may still be held liable in contempt for non-compliance with an interim judgment, notwithstanding that it has been superseded by a final judgment.
Mok Kah Hong v Zheng Zhuan YaoCourt of AppealYes[2016] 3 SLR 1SingaporeCited for the principle that a monetary judgment may be enforced by committal, but committal proceedings should not be used against an impecunious judgment debtor.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 (2020 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Civil Contempt
  • Impecunious Judgment Debtor
  • Consent Judgment
  • Worldwide Mareva Injunction
  • Committal Proceedings

15.2 Keywords

  • contempt of court
  • civil contempt
  • impecunious judgment debtor
  • consent judgment
  • mareva injunction

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Impecunious judgment debtor90
Civil Contempt90
Enforcement of Monetary Judgments80
Judgments and Orders75
Contract Law60
Fraud and Deceit50
Mareva Injunctions40

16. Subjects

  • Civil Litigation
  • Contempt of Court
  • Debt Enforcement