Madison Pacific v PT Dewata: Contempt of Court for Breaching Anti-Suit Injunction

In Madison Pacific Trust Limited and others v PT Dewata Wibawa and others, the High Court of Singapore addressed an application for a committal order against the third defendant, David Salim, for breaching an anti-suit injunction. The injunction was related to an arbitration agreement and PKPU applications in Jakarta. The court found Salim in contempt of court, both in his personal capacity and as the sole director of the first defendant, PT Dewata Wibawa. The court initially sentenced Salim to imprisonment but provided an opportunity to purge the contempt by discontinuing claims in the Jakarta court actions.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application granted; third defendant found to be in contempt of court.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court found David Salim in contempt for breaching an anti-suit injunction related to an arbitration agreement and PKPU applications.

1.7 Decision Date

16 July 2024

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Madison Pacific Trust Limited	Applicant	Corporation	Application Granted	Won	Danny Ong of Setia Law LLC Yam Wern-Jhien of Setia Law LLC Bethel Chan of Setia Law LLC Ayana Ki of Setia Law LLC
Tor Asia Credit Master Fund LP	Applicant	Limited Liability Partnership	Application Granted	Won	Danny Ong of Setia Law LLC Yam Wern-Jhien of Setia Law LLC Bethel Chan of Setia Law LLC Ayana Ki of Setia Law LLC
TACF Institutional Credit Master Fund LP	Applicant	Limited Liability Partnership	Application Granted	Won	Danny Ong of Setia Law LLC Yam Wern-Jhien of Setia Law LLC Bethel Chan of Setia Law LLC Ayana Ki of Setia Law LLC
Investment Opportunities V Pte Limited	Applicant	Corporation	Application Granted	Won	Danny Ong of Setia Law LLC Yam Wern-Jhien of Setia Law LLC Bethel Chan of Setia Law LLC Ayana Ki of Setia Law LLC
PT Dewata Wibawa	Defendant	Corporation	Committal Application Granted	Lost	Zhulkarnain Rahim of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP Sean Chen of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP John Cheong of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
PT Supermal Karawaci	Defendant	Corporation	Committal Application Granted	Lost	Zhulkarnain Rahim of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP Sean Chen of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP John Cheong of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
David Salim	Defendant	Individual	Committal Application Granted	Lost	Zhulkarnain Rahim of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP Sean Chen of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP John Cheong of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chua Lee Ming	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Danny Ong	Setia Law LLC
Yam Wern-Jhien	Setia Law LLC
Bethel Chan	Setia Law LLC
Ayana Ki	Setia Law LLC
Zhulkarnain Rahim	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Sean Chen	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
John Cheong	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP

4. Facts

Applicants and defendants were parties to an agreement with an arbitration clause.
Applicants commenced PKPU proceedings in Jakarta against the defendants.
Defendants commenced court actions in Jakarta against the applicants.
Applicants obtained an anti-suit injunction in Singapore against the defendants.
Defendants continued with the Jakarta court actions despite the anti-suit injunction.
Applicants sought a committal order against the third defendant for breaching the anti-suit injunction.

5. Formal Citations

Madison Pacific Trust Ltd and others v PT Dewata Wibawa and others, Originating Application No 894 of 2023(Summons No 387 of 2024), [2024] SGHC 184

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2021-12-01	First and second defendants commenced arbitration proceedings against the applicants.
2023-01-01	Tribunal issued a partial award dismissing the claim that the Agreement had been discharged.
2023-02-08	Gabriel Law Corporation informed the Tribunal that the defendants and DS Global would be appealing against the Partial Award.
2023-02-17	Third defendant sent an email to the Tribunal making allegations concerning the Tribunal’s conduct and impartiality.
2023-03-20	Defendants and DS Global filed an application to set aside the Partial Award.
2023-05-11	Defendants commenced another claim in the Central Jakarta District against the second to fourth applicants and Lath.
2023-08-16	Tribunal issued its final award.
2023-08-21	The Singapore International Commercial Court dismissed the Setting Aside Application.
2023-09-04	Applicants filed originating application seeking an anti-suit injunction against the defendants.
2023-11-03	Court made orders for the anti-suit injunction.
2023-12-11	Applicants filed seeking permission to make an application for committal.
2024-01-29	Court made orders granting permission for the applicants to make a committal order against the third defendant.
2024-01-31	Applicants filed the Committal Application.
2024-03-04	The Central Jakarta District Court dismissed the 1st Jakarta Court Action on the ground that it had no jurisdiction.
2024-03-07	The defendants appealed against the decision of the Central Jakarta District Court dismissing the 1st Jakarta Court Claim.
2024-03-11	The defendants filed seeking orders to set aside the service of the originating application in OA 894.
2024-03-15	The defendants applied to stay all proceedings in OA 894 pending the final disposal of OA 245.
2024-03-22	Court heard the Stay Application.
2024-03-25	Appeal was dismissed on 25 March 2024.
2024-05-21	The Jakarta High Court dismissed the defendants’ appeal.
2024-05-22	A hearing for the 2nd Jakarta Court Claim took place.
2024-05-30	The first and third defendants’ Indonesian counsel requested the Central Jakarta District Court to discontinue the examination process of the 2nd Jakarta Court Claim.
2024-06-04	The second defendant filed an appeal on cassation to the Supreme Court of Indonesia against the Jakarta High Court’s decision dismissing the defendants’ appeal in the 1st Jakarta Court Claim.
2024-07-17	Judgment Date

7. Legal Issues

Contempt of Court
- Outcome: The court found the third defendant guilty of contempt of court for intentionally disobeying the anti-suit injunction.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Breach of anti-suit injunction
  - Intentional disobedience of court order
Validity of Service
- Outcome: The court held that personal service was validly effected on the third defendant.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Personal service
  - Service out of jurisdiction
  - Service on solicitor
Defence of Honest and Reasonable Mistake
- Outcome: The court rejected the third defendant's defence of honest and reasonable mistake.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Failure to understand obligation
  - Reasonableness of mistake

8. Remedies Sought

Committal Order
Imprisonment
Fine

9. Cause of Actions

Contempt of Court
Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Arbitration

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
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 for the principle that court orders must be respected and obeyed, even if believed to be wrong.
Sabah Shipyard (Pakistan) Ltd v Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2004] 3 SLR(R) 184	Singapore	Cited for the interpretation of the phrase 'arising out of or in connection with'.
Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd v Karaha Bodas Co LLC and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR(R) 518	Singapore	Cited with approval from Mark S W Hoyle, Freezing and Search Orders regarding the principle that it is no defence to contempt proceedings to allege that the order should not have been made.
Mok Kah Hong v Zheng Zhuan Yao	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 3 SLR 1	Singapore	Cited for the principle that in cases involving continuing breaches, the sentence imposed would include both punitive and coercive elements.
Mobile Telecommunications v Prince Hussam	High Court of Justice	Yes	[2018] EWHC 3749	England and Wales	Applicants emphasised the importance of an anti-suit injunction.
VFV v VFU	High Court	Yes	[2021] 5 SLR 1428	Singapore	Cited as authority for the proposition that for the purposes of s 21 AJPA, a mistake may pertain to the validity of the court order itself and need not relate to the substantive contents of the court order.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 23 r 4(1) of the Rules of Court 2021
O 7 r 2(1)(d) ROC 2021
O 7 r 1(2) ROC 2021
O 7 r 3(e) ROC 2021
O 8 r 1(1) ROC 2021

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016	Singapore
s 4(1)(a) of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016	Singapore
s 6(2) of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016	Singapore
s 21 of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Anti-suit injunction
Committal order
Contempt of court
Arbitration Agreement
PKPU
Service of process
Honest and reasonable mistake

15.2 Keywords

Contempt of court
Anti-suit injunction
Arbitration
Singapore
Jakarta
Breach of order

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Contempt of Court	95
Anti-suit injunction	85
Arbitration	70
Jurisdiction	60
Civil Practice	50
International Arbitration Act	40

16. Subjects

Civil Litigation
Contempt
Injunctions
Arbitration