Exterian Capital v Wong Jun Jie: Contempt for Breaching Disclosure Obligations

In Exterian Capital Pte Ltd v Wong Jun Jie Adrian and Josephine Louise Richardson Limited, the High Court of Singapore found the first defendant, Adrian Wong Jun Jie, in contempt of court for breaching disclosure obligations under a Mareva Injunction and a Proprietary Injunction. The claimant, Exterian Capital Pte Ltd, alleged that Wong failed to disclose required information within the stipulated time frame and provided inadequate disclosures. The court imposed a fine of $30,000 and a suspended imprisonment term of four weeks.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application for committal against the first defendant for contempt of court granted. Fine of $30,000 and a suspended imprisonment term of four weeks imposed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court found Wong Jun Jie Adrian in contempt for breaching disclosure obligations under Mareva and Proprietary Injunctions. A fine and suspended imprisonment term were imposed.

1.7 Decision Date

8 October 2024

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Exterian Capital Pte Ltd	Claimant	Corporation	Application for committal granted	Won	Meher Malhotra of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Gregory Vijayendran of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Adrian Wong Jun Jie	Defendant	Individual	Found in contempt of court	Lost	Alfred Lim Than Lin of Meritus Law LLC Jaime Lye May-Yee of Meritus Law LLC Sean Choong Guo Yao of Meritus Law LLC Isabel Tia Hui Li of Meritus Law LLC
Josephine Louise Richardson Limited	Defendant	Corporation	No specific outcome mentioned	Neutral	Alfred Lim Than Lin of Meritus Law LLC Jaime Lye May-Yee of Meritus Law LLC Sean Choong Guo Yao of Meritus Law LLC Isabel Tia Hui Li of Meritus Law LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Choo Han Teck	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Meher Malhotra	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Gregory Vijayendran	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Alfred Lim Than Lin	Meritus Law LLC
Jaime Lye May-Yee	Meritus Law LLC
Sean Choong Guo Yao	Meritus Law LLC
Isabel Tia Hui Li	Meritus Law LLC

4. Facts

Claimant alleged the first defendant misrepresented himself as a lawyer admitted to the Singapore Bar.
Claimant made four payments totalling US$1,316,400 to the second defendant for a Rehabilitation Plan.
The money was not used for the Rehabilitation Plan, and the second defendant's shareholding in Unicorn was diluted without the claimant's knowledge.
The claimant obtained Mareva and Proprietary Injunctions against the first defendant in October 2023.
The first defendant did not disclose the required information within seven days of receiving notice of the injunctions.
The first defendant filed affidavits with incomplete information and explanations.
The first defendant failed to provide supporting documents for transactions relating to the Four Payments.

5. Formal Citations

Exterian Capital Pte Ltd v Wong Jun Jie Adrian and another, Originating Claim No 719 of 2023(Summons No 873 of 2024), [2024] SGHC 254

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2008-01-01	First defendant became legal adviser, financial advisor and consultant to FM’s subsidiary in Thailand.
2010-01-01	First defendant became a consultant and advisor to FM and its subsidiaries.
2017-01-01	Second defendant incorporated in the Seychelles.
2018-01-01	FM increased its shareholding in the Shipyard to 30.8%.
2020-01-01	Claimant sold to the claimant.
2020-01-01	The Shipyard ran into financial difficulties and defaulted on the loan.
2023-09-21	Claimant wrote to the first defendant asking for the identity of the signatories to the second defendant’s bank accounts.
2023-10-01	Mareva Injunction and Proprietary Injunction obtained against the first defendant.
2023-10-24	First defendant notified of the Injunction Orders by email.
2024-01-29	Claimant obtained an order for substituted service against the first defendant.
2024-03-18	First defendant filed affidavits without fully answering the questions posed in the Injunction Orders.
2024-03-20	First defendant filed affidavits without fully answering the questions posed in the Injunction Orders.
2024-06-24	Hearing date.
2024-07-08	First defendant tendered a set of disclosures in his affidavit.
2024-08-14	Hearing date.
2024-10-02	Hearing date.
2024-10-03	Hearing date.
2024-10-09	Judgment date.

7. Legal Issues

Contempt of Court
- Outcome: The court found the first defendant in contempt of court for breaching disclosure obligations under the Mareva and Proprietary Injunctions.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Breach of disclosure obligations
  - Failure to comply with court orders
- Related Cases:
  - [2018] 4 SLR 828
  - [2018] SGHC 267
  - [2007] 2 SLR(R) 518
  - [2010] 4 SLR 801
  - [2010] 4 SLR 870
  - [2013] 1 SLR 245

8. Remedies Sought

Committal for Contempt of Court
Disclosure of Assets

9. Cause of Actions

Fraud
Negligence
Unjust Enrichment

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
PT Sandipala Arthaputra v ST Microelectronics Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and others	High Court	Yes	[2018] 4 SLR 828	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the complainant need only show that the relevant conduct of the alleged contemnor was intentional and that he knew of all the facts which made such conduct a breach of the order.
Aero-Gate Pte Ltd v Engen Marine Engineering Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2018] SGHC 267	Singapore	Cited for the purpose of the seven-day duration to grant the claimant the necessary information to decide whether to apply for further steps to prevent the first defendant from acting contrary to the injunctions.
Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd v Karaha Bodas Co LLC and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR(R) 518	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an order of court must be obeyed until it is revoked or rescinded.
Lee Shieh-Peen Clement and another v Ho Chin Nguang and others	High Court	No	[2010] 4 SLR 801	Singapore	Cited to reject the first defendant’s unilateral interpretation of ORC 4975 favouring himself.
Tan Beow Hiong v Tan Boon Aik	High Court	Yes	[2010] 4 SLR 870	Singapore	Cited for the principle that custodial sentences are generally given where there was a continuing course of conduct and all other efforts to resolve the situation had been unsuccessful.
Sembcorp Marine Ltd v Aurol Anthony Sabastian	High Court	Yes	[2013] 1 SLR 245	Singapore	Cited for the principle that delaying tactics and peddling untenable excuses for non-disclosure pointed towards a custodial sentence.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016	Singapore
Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Mareva Injunction
Proprietary Injunction
Disclosure Obligations
Contempt of Court
Rehabilitation Plan
Four Payments
Substituted Service
Affidavits
Bank Statements

15.2 Keywords

Contempt
Injunction
Disclosure
Mareva
Proprietary
Court Order

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Civil Contempt	95
Contempt of Court	95
Injunctions	80
Disclosure Obligations	70
Asset Recovery	60
Fraud and Deceit	50
Breach of Contract	30

16. Subjects

Contempt of Court
Civil Procedure
Injunctions