SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 MarsdenLR 3337

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
GOLDEN STAR & ORS – Appellant
Versus
LING PEEK HOE & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Review No: 02(f)-24-04-2016(A)]



Petitioner Advocates:Hong Chong Hang,Edmund Lim ,Respondent Advocate: Chieng Lee Karn

Disobedience to court orders constitutes contempt, with the standard of proof clarified as 'beyond reasonable doubt' for civil claims.

Headnote:(A) Moneylenders Act 1951 – Federal Court Rules 1995 – Standard of proof in civil claims – Contempt of Court – Previous findings of the High Court reinstated, and contempt charges against respondents and HK were affirmed due to disobedience of court orders. Court found that the respondents failed to comply with the mandatory injunction and disregarded the Federal Court's authority. (Paras 24, 49, 70)

(B) Standard of proof in civil claims – Court clarified that 'irresistible conclusion' is equivalent to 'beyond reasonable doubt,' and COA erred in requiring a higher standard. (Paras 23, 24)

Facts of the case: Applicants sought enforcement of a Federal Court order against the respondents, who failed to comply within the specified period, leading to contempt proceedings initiated. They filed multiple review applications despite the existing orders. (Paras 18, 28, 29)

Findings of Court: The respondents' refusal to comply with the Federal Court Order constituted contempt, reflecting a blatant disregard for the judicial process. (Paras 63, 70)

Issues: The main issues addressed were the respondents' non-compliance with court orders and the implications of their actions in terms of contempt. (Paras 47, 54)

Ratio Decidendi: Court emphasized that obedience to court orders is mandatory and failure to comply, irrespective of legal representation, leads to contempt charges. The actions of the respondents were contumacious, undermining public confidence in the judicial system. (Paras 62, 70)

Result: Respondents and HK found guilty of contempt and are to be penalized accordingly. (Para 71)

JUDGMENT

Hasnah Mohammed Hashim FCJ:

Introduction

[1] There are two committal proceedings commenced, one initiated at the Ipoh High Court and the other, before this Court. The parties will be referred to as in the committal proceeding before the Federal Court.

[2] Enclosure 38(a) is the committal proceeding before this Court:

(1) Ding Toh Biew (No K/P: 710206-08-6281), Ding Toh Gien (No K/P: 680918-08-5573) dan Ding Toh Lei (No K/P: 631002-08-6225), Pemohon-Pemohon Ke-2, Ke-3 dan Ke-4 yang dinamakan di atas untuk tunjuk sebab mengapa mereka tidak harus dikomitkan ke penjara kerana menghina Perintah Mahkamah Persekutuan bertarikh 20 Jun 2017;

(2) Golden Star (No Pendaftaran Perniagaan: 5196380), Ding Toh Biew (No K/P: 710206-08-6281), Ding Toh Gien (No K/P: 680918-08-5573) dan Ding Toh Lei (No K/P: 631002-08-6225), pemohon pertama, Ke-2, Ke-3 dan Ke-4 yang dinamakan di atas untuk tunjuk sebab mengapa mereka tidak harus dikomitkan ke penjara kerana memalukan Hakim-Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan yang mendengar dan memutuskan Perintah Mahkamah Persekutuan bertarikh 20 Jun 2017 dan melemahkan pentadbiran keadilan dan keyakinan awam terhadap badan Kehakiman;

(3) Mohamed Haniff Bin Khatri Abdulla, seorang peguambela dan peguamcara yang mengamal di bawah nama dan gaya Tetuan Haniff Kathri, peguam mewakili pemohon-pemohon yang dinamakan di atas untuk tunjuk sebab mengapa beliau tidak harus dikomitkan ke penjara kerana membantu dan bersuhabat dengan pemohon-pemohon untuk mengekalkan pelanggaran dan ketidakpatuhan Perintah Mahkamah Persekutuan bertarikh 20 Jun 2017, memalukan Hakim-Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan yang mendengar dan memutuskan Perintah Mahkamah Persekutuan bertarikh 20 Jun 2017 dan melemahkan pentadbiran keadilan dan keyakinan awam terhadap Badan Kehakiman; dan

(4) Kos permohonan dibayar oleh pemohon-pemohon yang dinamakan di atas dan Mohamed Haniff Bin Khatri Abdulla kepada Ling Peek Hoe dan Ling Boon Huat/Responden-Responden.

[3] Enclosure 52(a) is the notice of motion filed by Mohamed Haniff Bin Khatri Abdulla ("HK") to set aside para 3 of the Federal Court Order dated 27 May 2019:

(1) Bahawa berdasarkan Kaedah 137, Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Persekutuan 1995 dan/atau bidang kuasa sedia ada Mahkamah, perenggan (3) Perintah Ex-Parte Mahkamah Persekutuan bertarikh 27 Mei 2019 yang memberikan kebenaran kepada responden-redsponden yang dinamakan di atas untuk memohon supaya Mohamed Haniff Bin Khatri Abdulla seorang peguambela dan peguamcara yang mengamal di bawah nama dan gaya Tetuan Haniff Khatri, peguam mewakili pemohon- pemohon yang dinamakan di atas, untuk tunjuk sebab mengapa beliau tidak hasur dikomitkan ke penjara kerana membantu dan bersubahat dengan pemohon-pemohon untuk megekalkan perlanggaran dan ketidakpatuhan Perintah Mahkamah Persekutuan bertarikh 20 Jun 2017, memalukan Hakim-Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan yang mendengar dan memutuskan perintah Mahkamah Persekutuan bertarikh 20 Jun 2017 dan melemahkan pentadbiran keadilan dan keyakinan awam terhadap Badan Kehakiman, adalah diketepikan;

(2) Bahawa berdasarkan Kaedah 137, Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Persekutuan 1995 dan/atau bidang kuasa sedia ada Mahkamah, prosiding pengkomitan melalui Notis Usul bertarikh 29 Mei 2019 terhadap Pemohon-Pemohon dan Mohamed Haniff bin Khatri Abdulla di Mahkamah Persekutuan, termasuk namun tidak terhad kepada pemfailan Afidavit Jawapan oleh Mohamed Haniff bin Khatri Abdulla terhadap prosiding pengkomitan tersebut, adalah digantung sehingga pelupusan permohonan Mohamed Haniff bin Khatri Abdulla di perenggan (1) di atas;

(3) Kos bagi permohonan ini hendaklah dibayar oleh responden-responden yang dinamakan di atas kepada Mohamed Haniff Bin Khatri Abdulla dengan serta-merta.

[4] Ling Peek Hoe and Ling Boon Huat are the 1st and 2nd applicants ("the applicants") in this committal proceeding. The 2nd applicant is the son of the 1st applicant. Golden Star, Ding Toh Biew, Ding Toh Gien and Ding Toh Lei are the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th respondents ("the respondents"). Mohamed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top