Back
2025 MarsdenLR 2250
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
LO CHANG GENG & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
FOO WAH CHEK & ORS; LO CHANG GENG & ANOR (APPLICANT); LEE SOK WAH (RESPONDEN.... – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: WA-24NCvC-86-01/2024]
A person against whom a Court order is issued must obey it until set aside; willful non-compliance constitutes contempt, especially for legal professionals.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 45 Rules 7 and 7(7) - Contempt of Court - Respondent found guilty of contempt for willfully disobeying High Court Order requiring EGM to consider specific resolutions - Respondent's refusal to comply despite knowledge of the Order constitutes clear contempt. (Paras 26, 29, 38)
(B) Legal Obligations - A person against whom a Court order has been issued is duty bound to obey that order until it is set aside; non-compliance is not permissible. (Paras 21, 22)
(C) Professional Responsibility - As an advocate and solicitor, the Respondent bore heightened responsibility to respect and comply with Court orders, and her conduct undermined judicial authority. (Paras 22, 34)
Facts of the case:
The Respondent, as Deputy Speaker of the Hainan Association, failed to table a motion at an EGM as mandated by a High Court Order, claiming constitutional grounds for her refusal. (Paras 1-10)
Findings of Court:
The Respondent's conduct constituted clear contempt of the High Court Order, with her refusal to comply being deliberate and willful. (Paras 26, 29)
Issues: Whether the Respondent's actions constituted contempt and whether her objections to the High Court Order were valid. (Paras 3, 4)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the duty to comply with Court orders, regardless of personal interpretation of constitutional provisions, and the Respondent's refusal was a direct challenge to judicial authority. (Paras 21, 25)
Result: The Respondent is found guilty of contempt and ordered to pay a fine of RM50,000.00 and tender a public apology. (Paras 38)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contempt application grounds presented. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. preliminary objections raised by respondent. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's jurisdiction confirmed; facts of contempt. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. respondent's refusal to comply with court order. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. respondent's knowledge and professional duties. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 6. clear breach of high court order established. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 7. rejection of legal authority by respondent. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 8. binding duty to obey court orders emphasized. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 9. respondent's admission of breach noted. (Para 23) |
| 10. constitutional interpretation cannot override court orders. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 11. contempt established; considerations for sentencing. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 12. mitigating factors considered for sentencing. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 13. court's order for public apology and fine. (Para 34 , 35) |
| 14. conclusion of contempt proceedings. (Para 36 , 37 , 38) |
[1] In imploring this Court that the Respondent was indeed contemptuous of the High Court Order of 20 March 2024 and ought to be sent to 7 days imprisonment, the Plaintiffs cited 3 reasons in support of their application:
(1) As the Deputy Speaker of the 3rd Defendant (Hainan Association) and the chairperson of the Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) held on 17 April 2024, deliberately refused to table the Plaintiff's motion for debate and voting despite the mandate of the High Court Order;
(2) The High Court Order specifically required the Defendants to convene an EGM "for the purpose of considering and if thought fit, passing the resolutions as set out in the Notice of Requisition for EGM dated 22 December 2023";
(3) The Respondent's conduct at the EGM was alleged to have intentionally impeded or prejudiced the administration of justice by frustrating the High Court Order.
[2] The Respondent expressed surprise in her response to the show cause notice dated 22 April 2024. In her opinion, she had conducted the EGM professionally in accordance with the Hainan Association's Constitution. She argued that Clause 8.1(b) of the Constitution clearly states that the General Council shall be elected at an AGM and serve 3 years, with the coming election falling on 30 June 2024. She contended that allowing the EGM to decide the General Council without proper election procedures would set a dangerous precedent whereby people would use the EGM to replace election procedures. There is also the argument of a lack of sincerity, whereby when she asked the proposed 42 members who were to replace the 35 members of the General Council to stand up to confirm the motion, no one did. She argued that even if the motion were to be put to debate and dealt with by way of a secret ballot, the result would be the same, as the majority would be on the other faction. The Respondent had additionally relied on cl 13.3 of the Constitution, which provided "the Speaker shall interpret the Constitution of the Association and when necessary, determine a point on which the Constitution is silent." She claimed that she conducted the EGM within the power given by the Constitution.
Preliminary Objections
[3] Before proceeding to the merits of the contempt application, this Court must first address the four preliminary objections raised by the Respondent in her solicitor's letter dated 25 February 2025:
(i) Personal Service and EGM Requisition Notice.
(a) The Respondent contended that she was not personally served with the High Court Order nor the EGM Requisition Notice as required under O 45 r 7 of the Rules of Court 2012 (RoC). However, this Court finds that personal service may be dispensed with where the alleged contemnor has actual knowledge of the High Court Order. In OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP v. Burhan Uray [2005] SGHC 81, the Singapore High Court held that the Court has discretion to dispense with personal service under O 45 r 7(7) where it is just to do so, particularly where the defendant was undoubtedly aware of the terms of
