Decision

Quay Chew Soon J:

Introduction

[1] By a notice of application dated 25 February 2025 in Enclosure 23, the Plaintiffs sought to commit the ten individual members of the management committee of the Defendant ("D") for contempt of court.

[2] On 18 June 2025. I dismissed the Plaintiffs' committal application in encl 23. Here are the grounds of my decision.

Background Facts

[3] Pursuant to an originating summons dated 19 January 2024, the Plaintiffs obtained the following order of court dated 23 July 2024 ("court order"):

"(2) suatu perintah mengarahkan Defendan untuk menguatkuasakan Kaedah - Kaedah Rumah Taman Cengkeh Indah (House Rules and Regulations Taman Cengkeh Indah) dan Undang - Undang Kecil di bawah Jadual 3, Pengurusan Strata (Penyelenggaraan dan Pengurusan) 2015 secara tegas terhadap semua penduduk The Residence - Taman Cengkeh Indah, di mana semua penduduk The Residence - Taman Cengkeh Indah di larang sama sekali untuk meletak kenderaan di mana - mana kawasan harta milik bersama;"

[4] In essence, the court order compels D to enforce the house rules and regulations of The Residence - Taman Cengkeh Indah' ("development") and the by - laws in the Third Schedule of the Strata Management (Maintenance and Management) Regulations 2015. By prohibiting the residents of the development ("residents ") from parking their vehicles on the common property of the development ("said prohibition").

[5] In compliance with the court order, Dissued notices dated 21 August 2024 to the residents of the development, whereby copies of the court order were enclosed. Pursuant to the said notices, the residents and their guests were prohibited from parking their vehicles on the common property of the development.

[6] Given that the court order did not specify any time frame within which the said prohibition is to be effective, D gave a grace period until 31 August 2024 for the residents to comply. As many of the residents had extra vehicles and needed time to resolve the same.

[7] Subsequently vide a notice dated 27 August 2024, D informed the residents that anyone who breached the said prohibition commencing from 1 September 2024 until 30 September 2024 would be given a warning. Thereafter commencing from 1 October 2024, further action (including clamping of wheels and fines) will be taken by D's security officers.

[8] Notwithstanding the above action taken by D to comply with the court order, the Plaintiffs filed encl 23 seeking to commence committal proceedings against the proposed contemnors for breaching the court order. On 25 February 2025, I granted leave for the Plaintiffs to commence committal proceedings against the ten individual members of the management committee of D.

The Law On Contempt

[9] Even for a civil contempt proceeding, the burden of proof which the Plaintiffs have to fulfil is that of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

[10] In Wee Choo Keong v. MBF Holdings Bhd & Anor And Another Appeal; [1995] 3 MLJ 549, the Supreme court (speaking through Chong Siew Fai, CJ) said (at p 563 - 564):

"Though it is sought to commit a party to a civil action for contempt and the proceedings are interlocutory, the standard of proof is the criminal standard, ie proof beyond reasonable doubt.

In Tay Seng Keng v. Tay Ek Seng Co Sdn Bhd; [1978] 1 MLJ 126, Gill CJ (Malaya) (as he then was) referred to Re Bramblevale Ltd [1970] Ch 128, which required the proof of contempt of court to be beyond reasonable doubt, and obviously accepted the test when he said (at p 127):

... it was quite impossible to say that the guilt of the appellant had been proved with such strictness of proof as is consistent with the test of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

In Re Bramblevale Ltd [1970] Ch 128, Lord Denning MR said (at p 137):

A contempt of court is an offence of a criminal character. A man may be sent to prison for it. It must be satisfactorily proved. To use the time - honoured phrase, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt."

[11] The Supreme court (speaking through Wan Adnan, FCJ)