Baker v BCS: Contempt of Court for Anti-Suit Injunction Breach & Director Disqualification
In the Singapore International Commercial Court, Michael Baker, as executor of Chantal Burnison's estate, brought a contempt of court action against BCS Business Consulting Services Pte Ltd, Marcus Weber, and Hartono Sianto for breaching an anti-suit injunction related to a prior judgment concerning Ethocyn rights. The court found BCS and Weber in contempt for disobeying the anti-suit injunction, imposing fines of $80,000 and $100,000 respectively. The application for a director disqualification order against Weber was dismissed, and the contempt application against Sianto was also dismissed.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Singapore International Commercial Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment against BCS Business Consulting Services Pte Ltd and Marcus Weber for contempt of court. Application for director disqualification order against Marcus Weber dismissed. Contempt application against Hartono Sianto dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court finds BCS and Weber in contempt for breaching an anti-suit injunction. Application for director disqualification against Weber was dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baker, Michael A | Plaintiff | Individual | Contempt order against BCS and Weber | Won | |
| BCS Business Consulting Services Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Fine imposed | Lost | |
| Marcus Weber | Defendant | Individual | Fine imposed | Lost | |
| Renslade Holdings Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Hartono Sianto | Other | Individual | Contempt application dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andre Maniam | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
| Dominique Hascher | International Judge | No |
| Christopher Scott Sontchi | International Judge | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Dr. Chantal Burnison co-invented Ethocyn, supplied to cosmetic manufacturers like Nu Skin.
- A dispute arose over the rights to Ethocyn, with Baker claiming Weber held the rights in trust for Chantal's estate.
- Baker sued BCS, Weber, and Renslade (HK) in Singapore, obtaining a judgment in his favor.
- BCS sued Baker and BCS Pharma in California, alleging interference with its contract with Nu Skin.
- The SICC granted an anti-suit injunction restraining BCS from prosecuting the Californian proceedings.
- BCS continued to prosecute claims in California that were subject to the anti-suit injunction.
- Weber, as owner and controller of BCS, instructed US lawyers to continue the Californian proceedings.
- Sianto resigned as director of BCS after disagreeing with Weber's decision to continue the Californian proceedings.
5. Formal Citations
- Baker, Michael A (executor of the estate of Chantal Burnison, deceased) v BCS Business Consulting Services Pte Ltd and others, Suit No 3 of 2018 (Summonses Nos 9 and 22 of 2023), [2024] SGHC(I) 2
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Baker sued BCS, Weber and Renslade (HK) in Singapore | |
| BCS sued Baker and BCS Pharma in California | |
| SICC gave judgment for Baker in Suit 3 | |
| Californian Proceedings stayed | |
| Appeal against Suit 3 Judgment dismissed | |
| Stay on the Californian Proceedings lifted | |
| Baker applied for an anti-suit injunction | |
| SICC granted the anti-suit injunction against the Defendants | |
| Appeal against the anti-suit injunction dismissed | |
| BCS filed a motion for leave to file the Fourth Amended Complaint | |
| Baker’s Statement of Committal filed | |
| Sianto resigned as a director of BCS | |
| BCS filed an application in the Californian court for an anti-suit injunction | |
| BCS filed an ex parte application in the Californian court for a temporary restraining order | |
| TRO application dismissed | |
| US ASI application was dismissed | |
| Hearing on contempt application | |
| Hearing on contempt application | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Contempt of court for breach of anti-suit injunction
- Outcome: BCS and Weber found in contempt of court for intentionally disobeying the anti-suit injunction.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Intentional disobedience of court order
- Failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent contempt
- Director disqualification
- Outcome: Application for director disqualification order against Weber dismissed.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Order of committal
- Fine
- Director disqualification order
9. Cause of Actions
- Contempt of Court
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- International Litigation
11. Industries
- Cosmetics
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | [2020] 4 SLR 85 | Singapore | This is the Suit 3 Judgment, the original case establishing the trust and the basis for the anti-suit injunction. The current judgment concerns the consequences of disobeying orders made in this case. |
| Baker, Michael A (executor of the estate of Chantal Burnison, deceased) v BCS Business Consulting Services Pte Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 3 SLR 103 | Singapore | This is the ASI Judgment, which the Court of Appeal referred to and agreed with the comprehensive judgment of the court below. The current judgment concerns the consequences of disobeying orders made in this case. |
| BCS Business Consulting Services Pte Ltd and others v Baker, Michael A (executor of the estate of Chantal Burnison, deceased) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] 1 SLR 1 | Singapore | This is the ASI Appeal, where the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the anti-suit injunction. The current judgment concerns the consequences of disobeying orders made in this case. |
| Mok Kah Hong v Zheng Zhuan Yao | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the statement of committal serves a crucial role in enabling the respondent to know the case that has been put forth against him. |
| Tay Kar Oon v Tahir | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 342 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court has the power to order committal on its own motion. |
| STX Corp v Jason Surjana Tanuwidjaja | High Court | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 1261 | Singapore | Cited for considering a contemnor’s lack of requisite deference in respect of the court orders binding him. |
| Wang Xiaopu v Goh Seng Heng and another | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 282 | Singapore | Cited for considering the contemnor’s conduct in the contempt proceedings. |
| PT Sandipala Arthaputra v STMicroelectronics Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 828 | Singapore | Cited for looking at events occurring after the breaches of the relevant court orders, for the purposes of assessing whether the contemnors had taken steps to mitigate and/or purge their contempt. |
| Aero-Gate Pte Ltd v Engen Marine Engineering Pte Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 822 | Singapore | Cited for recognizing that facts not set out in the statement of committal can be considered as part of the background facts for the charges that are made out when it comes to considering the appropriate sentence for those charges. |
| WestBridge Ventures II Investment Holdings v Anupam Mittal | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 270 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the court considered a fine to be the appropriate punishment for the breach of an anti-suit injunction. |
| Sembcorp Marine Ltd v Aurol Authony Sabastian | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 245 | Singapore | Cited for framing the issue of whether a fine is adequate to punish and deter contemptuous behaviour. |
| Mobile Telecommunications Co KSC v HRH Prince Hussam Bin Abdulaziz Au Saud | High Court of Justice | Yes | [2018] EWHC 3749 (Comm) | England and Wales | Cited as an English decision where a 12-month term of imprisonment was imposed for breach of an ASI. |
| Dell Emerging Markets (EMEA) Ltd and others v Systems Equipment Telecommunications Services SAL and others | High Court of Justice | Yes | [2020] EWHC 1384 (Comm) | England and Wales | Cited as an English decision where the court stated that contemptuous breaches of anti-suit injunctions are to be treated for sentencing purposes as analogous to breaches of freezing injunctions. |
| Technigroup Far East Pte Ltd and another v Jaswinderpal Singh s/o Bachint Singh and others | High Court | Yes | [2018] 3 SLR 1391 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that deliberate and substantial breaches of the disclosure provisions of a freezing order tend to be treated as a serious matter. |
| 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 imposing imprisonment terms for breaches of a freezing order in relation to disclosure of assets and accounting for expenditure. |
| BTS Tankers Pte Ltd v Energy & Commodity Pte Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 58 | Singapore | Cited for imposing imprisonment terms on the two contemnors for breach of disclosure obligations under freezing orders. |
| Tan Beow Hiong v Tan Boon Aik | High Court | Yes | [2010] 4 SLR 870 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that contempt by intentional disobedience of a court order is regarded as civil contempt. |
| Li Shengwu v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 1081 | Singapore | Cited for recognizing that civil procedure and processes have always been used to establish jurisdiction over any contemnor, whether the contempt complained of was civil contempt or criminal contempt. |
| Tan Liang Joo John v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2020] 5 SLR 1314 | Singapore | Cited for finding that criminal contempt would fall within the concept of “offence” under Art 45(1)(e) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, but expressly left open the position regarding civil contempt because of its potentially different nature. |
| Maruti Shipping Pte Ltd v Tay Sien Djim and others | High Court | Yes | [2014] SGHC 227 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that despite its quasi-criminal nature, a civil contempt does not amount to a criminal offence. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Companies Act 1967 | Singapore |
| Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| Securities and Futures Act 2001 | Singapore |
| Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Anti-suit injunction
- Contempt of court
- Director disqualification
- Ethocyn Rights
- Trust Assets
- Californian Proceedings
- Injuncted Claims
- Statement of Committal
15.2 Keywords
- Contempt
- Anti-suit injunction
- Director disqualification
- Ethocyn
- Singapore International Commercial Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Contempt of Court | 95 |
| Anti-suit injunction | 85 |
| Company Law | 75 |
| Director's Disqualification | 70 |
| Commercial Disputes | 60 |
| International Commercial Court | 50 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
| Arbitration | 25 |
16. Subjects
- Contempt of Court
- Civil Procedure
- Companies Law
- Injunctions