The court emphasized the fair trial rights in contempt proceedings, allowing sentencing in absentia under certain conditions.

[1] On 30 January 1996, by consent, the High Court ordered that Kian Joo Holdings Sdn Bhd (the company) be wound up pursuant to s 218(f) and (i) of the Companies Act 1965 .

[2] At the same time, one Abdul Jabbar bin Abdul Majid and Ng Kim Tuck from KPMG Peat Marwick were appointed as the joint and several liquidators of the company. On 2 October 2007, one Ooi Woon Chee from the same firm was appointed as one of the liquidators to replace Abdul Jabbar bin Abdul Majid.

[3] At the meeting of contributories on 10 July 2008, the majority contributories (representing 52% in value of the companys equity) were in favour of selling of the entire shares of the company, while the remaining contributories (being minority contributories holding 48% in value of the equity) preferred distribution of the shares in specie.

[4] On 23 February 2009, the liquidators entered into a conditional shares sale agreement for the sale of 146,131,500 shares in question to Can-One International Sdn Bhd. The contributories opposed the transaction and had rebuked the liquidators for their acts in breach of fiduciary duties, conflict of interest as well as fraud in regard to the tender process for the sale of the shares.

[5] The majority contributories, represented by their solicitors, Messrs VK Lingam & Co, filed an application to the High Court, against the liquidators for leave to proceed with legal proceedings for alleged misconduct in the tender of the companys assets and eventual award to Can-One International Sdn Bhd for the sale of the shares. On 25 September 2009, the High Court dismissed their application.

[6] Being dissatisfied with the dismissal of their application by the High Court, the majority contributories appealed to the Court of Appeal against the decision. On 26 April 2010, the appeal was allowed by the Court of Appeal, whereupon the High Courts decision was set aside.

[7] The liquidators then filed a motion for leave to appeal to the Federal Court against the decision of the Court of Appeal. Leave was granted on 21 February 2011. On 5 January 2012, the Federal Court allowed the liquidators appeal with costs. All orders made by the Court of Appeal were set aside and consequently all orders made by the High Court were restored. The Federal Court also awarded a sum of RM300,000.00 (as against the majority contributories) to the liquidators as costs.

[8] Subsequently, all the contributories filed an application to the Federal Court to review its judgment dated 5 January 2012 claiming that the Federal Courts grounds of judgment revealed plagiarism and substantially a reproduction, without any attribution to the liquidators written submission dated 4 July 2011. The solicitors for the majority contributories, Messrs VK Lingam, filed the review application on the ground of plagiarism. On behalf of the minority contributories, Messrs Nayagam & Partners also filed a similar application using a similar ground.

[9] On 22 May 2013, the review application was dismissed by the Federal Court. The Federal Court was of the view that the adoption of the counsels submissions as the courts grounds of judgment in itself did not constitute sufficient ground for the Court to review and set aside its earlier decision. The Federal Court also held:

"(iii) The Court accepted that the respondents did not allege actual bias on the part of the panel of judges who decided the appeals concerned but merely one of apparent bias.

(iv) However, having analysed the judgment in question the Court did not find sufficient evidence proving apparent bias."

[10] Pursuant to the decision of the Federal Court in the review application, the liquidators initiated contempt proceedings against all the majority and minority contributories (inclusive of their two lawyers, VK Lingam and Thisinayagam