JUDGMENT

Roz Mawar Rozain J:

[1] In imploring this court that the respondent was indeed contemptuous of the High court Order of 20 March 2024 and ought to be sent to 7 days imprisonment, the plaintiffs cited 3 reasons in support of their application:

(1) As the Deputy Speaker of the 3rd defendant (Hainan Association) and the chairperson of the Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) held on 17 April 2024, deliberately refused to table the plaintiff's motion for debate and voting despite the mandate of the High court Order;

(2) The High court Order specifically required the defendants to convene an EGM "for the purpose of considering and if thought fit, passing the resolutions as set out in the Notice of Requisition for EGM dated 22 December 2023";

(3) The respondent's conduct at the EGM was alleged to have intentionally impeded or prejudiced the administration of justice by frustrating the High court Order.

[2] The respondent expressed surprise in her response to the show cause notice dated 22 April 2024. In her opinion, she had conducted the EGM professionally in accordance with the Hainan Association's Constitution. She argued that cl 8.1(b) of the Constitution clearly states that the General Council shall be elected at an AGM and serve 3 years, with the coming election falling on 30 June 2024. She contended that allowing the EGM to decide the General Council without proper election procedures would set a dangerous precedent whereby people would use the EGM to replace election procedures. There is also the argument of a lack of sincerity, whereby when she asked the proposed 42 members who were to replace the 35 members of the General Council to stand up to confirm the motion, no one did. She argued that even if the motion were to be put to debate and dealt with by way of a secret ballot, the result would be the same, as the majority would be on the other faction. The respondent had additionally relied on cl 13.3 of the Constitution, which provided "the Speaker shall interpret the Constitution of the Association and when necessary, determine a point on which the Constitution is silent." She claimed that she conducted the EGM within the power given by the Constitution.

Preliminary Objections

[3] Before proceeding to the merits of the contempt application, this court must first address the four preliminary objections raised by the respondent in her solicitor's letter dated 25 February 2025:

(i) Personal Service and EGM Requisition Notice.

(a) The respondent contended that she was not personally served with the High court Order nor the EGM Requisition Notice as required under O 45 r 7 of the Rules of 2012 (RoC). However, this court finds that personal service may be dispensed with where the alleged contemnor has actual knowledge of the High court Order. In OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP v. Burhan Uray [2005] SGHC 81, the Singapore High court held that the court has discretion to dispense with personal service under O 45 r 7(7) where it is just to do so, particularly where the defendant was undoubtedly aware of the terms of the orders;

(b) The evidence clearly establishes that the respondent had full knowledge of the High court Order. As Deputy Speaker, she chaired the EGM on 17 April 2024 and repeatedly referred and explained the High court Order during the meeting. She read out the exact wording of the Order to the attendees. Her active engagement with the High court Order's requirements demonstrates unequivocal knowledge, negating any prejudice from lack of formal service.

(ii) Penal Notice.

(a) The respondent argued that the High court Order lacks a penal notice specifically naming her. While O 45 r 7(4) RoC requires penal notices, this court may dispense with this requirement under r 7(7) where it is just to do so. In Tang Hak Ju v. Pengarah Tanah Dan Galian Pulau Pinang & Ors (Encl DD); [2017] 2 CLJ 345, the High court held that non-endorsement of a penal notice was not fatal where the alleged contemnor had full knowledge of the order;

(a) T