Back
2024 MarsdenLR 2346
HIGH COURT MALAYA PULAU PINANG
CHAN ENG LEONG & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
GOH CHOON KIM & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: PA-22NCVC-8-01/2020]
Disobeying a court order constitutes contempt of court, and knowledge of the order is presumed when parties are represented by solicitors.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Court – Civil Contempt – Breach of Injunction – The court found that the Defendants breached an ad interim injunction by interfering with the management of the company and attempting to remove the Plaintiffs as directors, which was prohibited by the Order dated 14 January 2020. (Paras 12-14, 67-68)
(B) Legal Principles – The court reiterated that the terms of the Order must be clear and unambiguous, and that knowledge of the Order is presumed when parties are represented by solicitors. (Paras 45-46, 70-73)
(C) Findings of Court – The court found that the Defendants knowingly breached the Order by issuing letters that interfered with the Plaintiffs' directorship and management of the company, constituting contempt of court. (Paras 158-160)
Facts of the case: The Plaintiffs, current directors of the company, obtained an injunction against the Defendants, former directors, prohibiting them from interfering with the management of the company. The Defendants issued letters that allegedly breached this injunction. (Paras 1-4)
Findings of Court: The court found the Defendants guilty of contempt for breaching the injunction and imposed fines instead of immediate imprisonment. (Paras 158-162)
Issues: The main issues were whether the Defendants breached the injunction and whether their actions constituted contempt of court. (Paras 4, 158)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that disobeying a court order is inherently an interference with the administration of justice, and the Defendants' actions were found to be contemptuous. (Paras 136-138)
Result: Goh, Ong, GCSeang, and GKHeong found guilty of contempt and fined RM30K each, with a 24-hour committal order if fines are not paid. (Paras 158-162)
JUDGMENT
(Five Contempt Proceedings)
Prelusion
[1] One of the issues in dispute in this suit is about controlling the subject company through its directorship. The Plaintiffs are the current directors of the company. They obtained an injunction against the Defendants, who used to be the directors.
[2] The injunction prohibits the Defendants from doing any act that would affect the Plaintiffs' directorships, which would in turn pre-empt the proper disposal of this suit. The injunction also prohibits the Defendants from interfering in the management and affairs of the company.
[3] The Defendants and three other persons related to them wrote letters and performed acts that the Plaintiffs allege breached the terms of the injunction. The Plaintiffs, after getting the leave of Court, commenced contempt and committal proceedings against the Defendants and the three other non-party alleged contemnors.
[4] Should contempt and committal Orders be made against the alleged contemnors?
Preliminaries
[5] This is the Judgment on Enclosure 59-a Notice Of Application. Enclosure 59 is the Applicant-Plaintiffs' Application for contempt and committal Orders against five alleged contemnors. Within one Notice Of Application, there are respectively five contempt proceedings against the 1st Defendant (D1), the 2nd Defendant (D2), and the three non-party alleged contemnors-Goh Choon Seang, Goh Kim Heong and Goh Kooi Cheng. I will refer to the alleged contemnors as "AC" or "ACs".
[6] These contempt proceedings are effectively the five respective show cause proceedings for the ACs, where they show cause as to why they should not be found in contempt of Court and hence should not be committed to prison.
[7] At the ACs' request, these contempt proceedings went through 12 days (12 sessions) of hearing, with each AC giving evidence, and questioned, in their respective show causes. In addition, numerous affidavits, and numerous volumes of written submissions, submissions in reply, bundles of authorities, and what is now popularly known as "speaking notes", were filed for these proceedings.
[8] I set out here-the facts, the evidence and the issues pertinent to these contempt proceedings, and my eventual findings.
The Parties
[9] I will refer to the Plaintiffs together as "P1P2".
[10] I will refer to D1 as "Goh", and D2 as "Ong". Goh and Ong are husband and wife. I will refer to the 3rd Defendant company as "Global".
[11] I will refer to Goh Choon Seang as "GCSeang". GCSeang is Goh/D1's brother. I will refer to Goh Kim Heong as "GKHeong". GKHeong is Goh's nephew (GCSeang's son). I will refer to Goh Kooi Cheng as "GKCheng". GKCheng is Goh and Ong's daughter.
What Are The Terms Of The Order Said To Be Disobeyed?
[12] The Order allegedly disobeyed by the ACs is the Order dated 14 January 2020 (Order). The Order is an ad interim injunction, granted up to the disposal of the P1P2's Application proper for an interim injunction.
[13] The Order is in these terms (with my emphases on the pertinent words used set out in bold):
(1A) Paragraph 1.a.i.-an injunction to restrain Goh and Ong, including by other people connected to Goh and Ong, such as "their agents, employees, servants or any of them", or "otherwise howsoever in any manner whatsoever"-from "convening, holding or allowing to be held any general meeting" of Global, or "voting or passing and/or implementing any resolution" that purports to or have the effect of:
(1) "removing" P1P2 as Global's directors, or
(2) "in any manner interfering with their position and rights as directors of Global"; and that purports to or have the effect of:
(3) "appointing" Goh/D1 and GKHeong or any other person as Global's directors, in substitution of or in addition to P1P2 as Global's directors;
(1B) Paragraph 1.b.-an injunction to restrain Goh and Ong, including by other people connected to Goh and Ong such as "their agents, employees, servants or any of them", or "otherwise howsoever in any manner whatsoever"-from "taking any actio
