Contempt proceedings initiated by aggrieved parties are civil in nature, governed by court rules, and must comply with statutory time limits for appeals.

Introduction

[1] The appellant filed two (2) motions before us (Encl 45 in Appeal 202 and Encl 39 in Appeal 203) for abridgement of time to file and serve their petition of appeals in order for their appeals to be accepted as valid and proper.

[2] The two motions were filed by the appellant pursuant to a preliminary objection raised by the respondent that the two (2) petitions of appeal filed in both appeals were contrary to r 65(1) of the Rules of Court of Appeal 1994 ("RCA 1994") and s 53(1) of the Court of Judicature Act 1964 ("CJA 1964").

[3] The respondent is the applicant in these committal proceedings. The appellants were cited by the respondent for non-compliance with the Court order. The leave to commence the two committal proceedings was granted by the High Court. The appellants filed an application before the High Court to set aside to set aside the leave application but were refused by the High Court. Hence, the appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Background Facts

[4] The background facts leading to the filing of these appeals are as follows.

[5] The respondent's accounts with the 1st appellant ie CIMB Bank Berhad (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank"") were frozen vide two Freezing Orders dated 30 April 2014 and 15 May 2014 respectively, pursuant to s 44 of Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 ("AMLATFA").

[6] Prior to the lapse of the Freezing Orders, a s 50 AMLATFA Seizure Order dated 24 July 2014 ("Section 50 Seizure Order") was issued by the Public Prosecutor directing the Bank to seize the respondent's accounts with the Bank.

[7] On 23 July 2020, the Ipoh High Court ordered that the respondent is at liberty to utilise her properties that were unlawfully seized by the Public Prosecutor.

[8] Vide a letter dated 24 July 2020, the respondent's solicitor served the Bank with the Court Order dated 23 July 2020 in order to inform the Bank that both Freezing Orders were set aside and that the respondent was free to deal with her accounts.

[9] On 3 August 2020, the Bank filed an application for clarification of the 23 July 2020 Court Order to clarify the ambit of the 23 July 2020 Court Order as:

(a) The 23 July 2020 Court Order only made reference to the s 44 Freezing Orders as having been set aside (the s 50 Seizure Order not mentioned); and

(b) The Bank was not a party to these subject proceedings and not named as a party to the 23 July 2020 Court Order

[10] At the hearing of the Bank's clarification application on 11 August 2020, the Learned High Court Judge took the position that as the Bank was not a party to the proceedings, the Bank had no locus standi to seek clarification of the Court Order dated 23 July 2020. However, the learned High Court Judge did state that the 23 July 2020 Court Order was intended to also set aside the s 50 Seizure Order.

[11] Following the feedback from the clarification, on 11 August 2020, the Bank released the respondent's accounts.

[12] The respondent's solicitor, by its letter dated 25 August 2020 to the Bank, gave notice that the respondent will not pursue committal proceedings against the Bank for failing to comply with the Order dated 23 July 2020 if the Bank or its solicitors tender an unreserved apology to the Ipoh High Court Judge within 7 days.

[13] On 28 August 2020, the Bank through its solicitor handed a copy of a letter of apology dated 27 August 2020 and the solicitor's letter dated 28 August 2020 to the Learned High Court Judge's secretary placing on record that at no time had the Bank and/or its