Disobedience of court orders and misleading conduct constitute contempt, warranting custodial sentences.

[1] These are my grounds of judgment in respect of an application by the plaintiff for an order of committal against the defendant (Enclosure 126). For purposes of the committal proceedings, I shall refer to the plaintiff and defendant as "the applicant" and "the respondent", respectively. The committal proceedings were initiated about eight (8) months after the main suit (defamation) suit had been concluded. The decision of this Court in the main suit (after full trial) was delivered on 29 July 2016 ("the Order").

[2] The main suit was based on postings and comments on the respondent's Facebook account which were held to be defamatory of the applicant.

[3] The committal proceeding is predicated on the respondent's post-judgment conduct Briefly, the applicant's grounds for committal are:

a) that the respondent had disobeyed paragraph (1) of the Order by which the respondent was restrained from writing and publishing or causing to be written and published defamatory words complained of in the Facebook publications and/or such other similar or like defamatory words, of and concerning the plaintiff and in the way of his offices; and

b) that he had misled the Court by way of his affidavit affirmed on 7 February 2017 (encl 92), when he moved this Court for a stay of execution of the monetary judgment under the Order (per paras 4, 5 and 6 of the Order).

[4] In so far as disobedience of paragraph (1) of the Order is concerned, the applicant relied on seven (7) post-judgment Facebook publications attributed to the respondent, by which it is alleged that the respondent had defamed the plaintiff by publishing words which are similar to the words complained of in the defamatory publications which were the subject matter of the main suit.

[5] As for misleading the Court via his affidavit, it is alleged that the respondent had stated in his affidavit affirmed on 7 February 2017 that he would be ruined by the bankruptcy proceedings which were taken against him by the applicant, whereas in opposing the applicant's application in the Court of Appeal for security for costs, the respondent is alleged to have taken a position which was contrary to his affidavit in support of his application for stay of execution. As such, it is alleged that the respondent was not truthful to this Court when he sought a stay of execution and that such conduct on the respondent's part, is to be construed as conduct which undermines the administration of justice.

Background

[6] In order to understand and appreciate the context and circumstances leading up to the committal proceedings, it is necessary to examine the basis of the defamation suit and the events that took place thereafter.

[7] The background to the defamation suit is as follows.

[8] The applicant was at all material times or at least since 1992, the Chairman of the management committee of the Sri Maha Mariamman Dhevasthanam Temple ("the Temple") which is an iconic Hindu temple along Jalan Tun H S Lee, in Kuala Lumpur. According to the pleaded case, the Temple and its property/assets are all part of a religious charitable trust. The religious charitable trust also owns the Ganesha temple in Pudu and the Batu Caves Temple complex as well.

[9] The applicant filed the main action for defamation against the respondent for various postings and comments in the respondent's Facebook accounts. After a full trial, judgment was given in favour of the applicant. The Order reads as follows:

"1) An injunction to restrain the defendant, whether by himself or through his agents, servants and/or employees from writing and publishing and/or causing to be written and published, the defamatory words complained of in the Facebook publications and/or such other s