Neo Chin Heng v Good Year Contractor: Contempt of Court for Failure to Produce Company Documents
In Neo Chin Heng v Good Year Contractor Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore found Good Year Contractor Pte Ltd and its director, Mr. Peh Eng San, guilty of contempt of court for failing to comply with a court order to produce company documents for inspection. The court fined both Good Year and Mr. Peh $20,000 each.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Respondents found guilty of contempt of court and fined.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex Tempore Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Good Year Contractor and its director, Mr. Peh, were found guilty of contempt of court for failing to produce company documents as ordered.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neo Chin Heng | Claimant, Applicant | Individual | Successful Committal Application | Won | Choo Zheng Xi, Chua Shi Jie, Kertar Singh s/o Guljar Singh |
| Good Year Contractor Pte Ltd | Defendant, Respondent | Corporation | Found Guilty of Contempt | Lost | Manickavasagam s/o R M Karuppiah Pillai |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Goh Yihan | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Choo Zheng Xi | RCL Chambers Law Corporation |
| Chua Shi Jie | RCL Chambers Law Corporation |
| Kertar Singh s/o Guljar Singh | Kertar & Sandhu LLC |
| Manickavasagam s/o R M Karuppiah Pillai | Manicka & Co |
4. Facts
- The applicant sought to inspect company documents from Good Year.
- The court ordered Good Year to produce the documents by April 24, 2023.
- Good Year failed to produce the documents by the deadline.
- The applicant filed a committal application for contempt of court.
- Good Year claimed an accountant firm was responsible for the delay.
- The director, Mr. Peh, was aware of the court order.
- Mr. Peh did not take all reasonable steps to ensure compliance.
5. Formal Citations
- Neo Chin Heng v Good Year Contractor Pte Ltd, Originating Application No 13 of 2023 (Summons No 190 of 2024), [2024] SGHC 62
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant filed HC/OA 13/2023. | |
| Court Order issued, requiring Good Year to produce company documents. | |
| Court Order e-served on Good Year’s lawyers. | |
| Deadline for Good Year to comply with the Court Order. | |
| Applicant was sent draft resignation documents. | |
| Extraordinary general meeting convened to remove the applicant as a director. | |
| Hearing on SUM 190. | |
| Additional hearing on SUM 190; judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Civil Contempt
- Outcome: The court found the respondents guilty of civil contempt.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Intentional breach of court order
- Appropriate quantum of fine
- Whether custodial sentence warranted
- Related Cases:
- [2018] 4 SLR 828
8. Remedies Sought
- Committal Orders
- Fine
- Imprisonment
9. Cause of Actions
- Contempt of Court
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PT Sandipala Arthaputra v STMicroelectronics Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 828 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the threshold to establish the requisite mens rea for contempt of court is a low one. |
| Baker, Michael A (executor of the estate of Chantal Burnison (deceased) v BCS Business Consulting Services Pte Ltd and others | Singapore International Commercial Court | Yes | [2024] SGHC(I) 2 | Singapore | Cited to determine the appropriate quantum of fine for contempt of court. |
| WestBridge Ventures II Investment Holdings v Anupam Mittal | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 270 | Singapore | Cited to determine the appropriate quantum of fine for contempt of court. |
| Maruti Shipping Pte Ltd v Tay Sien Djim and others | High Court | Yes | [2014] SGHC 227 | Singapore | Cited to determine the appropriate quantum of fine for contempt of court. |
| Sembcorp Marine Ltd v Aurol Anthony Sabastian | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 245 | Singapore | Cited for the factors to consider when determining whether a term of imprisonment is appropriate for contempt of court. |
| Mok Kah Hong v Zheng Zhuan Yao | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for the factors to consider when determining whether a term of imprisonment is appropriate for contempt of court. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court 2021 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Companies Act 1967 | Singapore |
| Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Contempt of court
- Company documents
- Court order
- Committal application
- Director's duties
- Mens rea
15.2 Keywords
- Contempt
- Court Order
- Company Documents
- Singapore
- Civil Litigation
16. Subjects
- Contempt of Court
- Civil Procedure
- Company Law
17. Areas of Law
- Contempt of Court
- Civil Procedure
- Companies Act