Failure to comply with court orders constitutes contempt, with strict adherence to procedural rules necessary for enforcement.

JUDGMENT

Ahmad Bache J:

[Enclosure (42) - Order For Committal Against The Second Defendant

Enclosure (44) - To Set Aside The Judgment Dated 11 March 2019]

A. Brief Fact

[1] There was a consent judgment recorded between the Second Defendant (for both Defendants) vide Enclosure (38). Despite a lapse of 7 months, the Defendants still failed to comply with the Order and Judgment of this Court dated 11 March 2019 (on Order 14A Judgment), amongst others, was to account for the dealings in the land in question in the form of an affidavits.

[2] Consequently, vide Enclosure (42), the Plaintiff had made an application to this Court to commit the Second Defendant, Jasvinder Singh (as the First Defendant has died) for contempt of this Court.

[3] After hearing submissions from parties, this Court had found that the Second Defendant had committed contempt of Court. After hearing submissions on mitigation, this Court ordered the Contemnor/Second Defendant to pay a fine of RM35,000.00 within 2 months until 11 October 2022. In default, 1-month jail and cost of RM5,000.00 to be paid to the Plaintiff.

[4] Vide Enclosure (44), the Second Defendant had made an application to set aside the 11 March 2019 Order and Judgment of this Court. Following the decision on Enclosure (42), this application was dismissed with cost of RM5,000.00.

[5] Dissatisfied, the Second Defendant had appealed to the Court of Appeal for both Enclosures.

[6] Herewith are the grounds for the decision.

B. The Law On Contempt Of Court

[7] The jurisdiction and power to commit a person to prison for failure, neglect or refusal to comply with an order of Court is clear and specified in O 52 of Rules of 2012 , whereas the standard of proof required for civil contempt is "beyond reasonable doubt".

See Tan Sri Dato' Dr Razali Ismail v. Lim Pang Cheng , 2011 MarsdenLR 1312 .

[8] It is axiomatic that all Court Orders are to be treated with respect until it is set aside and requires strict obedience as so held by the Supreme Court in the case of Wee Choo Keong v. MBFHoldings Bhd & Anor and another appeal, 1993 MarsdenLR 1432 . It follows that any degree of non-compliance with the Court Orders would constitute contempt of Court, as held by the English Court in Howitt Transport Ltd & Anor v. Transport and General Workers' Union National Industrial Relations Court [1973] ICR 1:

"Non-compliance with a Court order can have a wide range of qualities. It mav, at the top end of the scale, consist of a flat defiance of the Court's authority. Going down the scale, it may not amount to flat defiance, but rather to a passive ignoring of the Court's order. And, at the bottom end of the scale, there may have been a genuine, whole-hearted use of the best endeavours to comply with the order, which nevertheless has been unsuccessful in each case there is a breach of the Court's order. In each case, to use the technicalities of the law, there is a "contempt of Court"."

C. Analysis And Finding Of This Court

Procedural Compliance Of Order 52 Rule 4

[9] Having perused the cause papers and haaving considered the affidavits and submissions by parties, this Court was satisfied that the Plaintiff, Mutaya had complied with all the procedural requirements of O 52 r 4 of Rules of 2012 , which reads as follows:

"Application for order after leave to apply granted (O 52, r 4)

4. (1) When leave has been granted under r 3 to apply for an order of committal, the application for the order must be made by notice of application to the Court, and, unless the Court granting leave has otherwise directed, there must be at least eight clear days between the service of the notice of application and the day named therein for the hearing.

(2) Unless within fourteen days after such leave was granted the notice of application is filed, the leave shall lapse.

(3) Subject to paragraph (4), the notice, accompanied by a copy of the statement and affidavit in support of the application for leave under r 3 and the order granting such leave, must be served