YIP YEE FOO vs EDMUND CHARLES LIEBENBERG

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2014 MarsdenLR 111

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
YIP YEE FOO – Appellant
Versus
EDMUND CHARLES LIEBENBERG – Respondent

Table of Content
1. committal orders require compliance with court orders. (Para 1 , 1 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. appeal against committal order granted (Para 2)
3. failure to comply with court orders constitutes contempt. (Para 6 , 9 , 10)
4. judgment must be based on reliable evidence and reasonable conclusions. (Para 7 , 8 , 15)
5. defense of impecuniosity discussed (Para 11)
6. impecuniosity does not exempt from court orders without proof. (Para 12 , 14 , 18)
7. court's evaluation of appellant's financial status (Para 13)
8. court's findings of contempt established (Para 16 , 17)

[1] The 6th respondent in the High Court, Yip Yee Foo ("the appellant") appealed to this Court against the grant of the committal order on 30 October 2012 against him as follows:

(a) Fine RM50,000 to be paid by 30 November 2012, in default one month's jail;

(b) Daily fine RM1,000.00 until contempt purged, in default one day's imprisonment.

[2] On 3 July 2013, after having read the Written Submissions and the Record of Appeal and having heard the oral submissions, this Court, upon deliberation, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and ordered the fine paid and that the deposit be refunded. The following a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 MarsdenLR 111

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAYIP YEE FOO – AppellantVersusEDMUND CHARLES LIEBENBERG – Respondent

Cases Referred (3)

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
YIP YEE FOO – Appellant
Versus
EDMUND CHARLES LIEBENBERG – Respondent