Back
2021 MarsdenLR 2121
FEDERAL COURT (PUTRAJAYA)
ABDUL RAHMAN, J, ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF, J, HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM, CJ
Golden Star & Ors – Plaintiff
Versus
Ling Peek Hoe & Ors – Defendant
CIVIL REVIEW NO 02(f)-24-04 OF 2016(A)
Hong Chong Hang (Edmund Lim with him) (Hong Chew King & Co) for the applicants.
Chieng Lee Karn (Chieng and Lum and Assoc) for the respondents.
Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla (Mohamad Reza bin Abu Hassan, Mohd Irzan Iswatt Mohd Noor and Mohamad Farhan bin Kamarudin Haniff Khatri with him) for Haniff Khatri.
Advocates and parties must comply with court orders to maintain judicial authority; non-compliance, especially with legal counsel's assistance, constitutes contempt.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 52 Rule 2B - Legal Profession Act - Section 35(1) - Committal proceedings for contempt of court concerning non-compliance with a Federal Court order affirming a High Court decision. Court underscores that disobedience to court orders, irrespective of their supposed validity, constitutes contempt (Para 57).
(B) Standard of Proof - The Federal Court articulated that in civil claims, the 'irresistible conclusion test' aligns with the 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard, overriding the Court of Appeal's erroneous interpretation (Para 24).
(C) Responsibilities of Counsel - An advocate must ensure compliance with court orders, failing which they may be held in contempt (Para 65).
Facts of the case:
The Applicants sought to enforce a Federal Court order directing the Respondents to surrender property titles, against whom prior court decisions declared misrepresentation in property transfers. The Respondents engaged legal counsel to file subsequent review applications despite non-compliance with the original order.
Findings of Court:
The Court found the Respondents guilty of contempt for intentionally disregarding the Mandatory Injunction and affirmed that the lawyer acted contumaciously by aiding such disregard.
Issues: The core issues addressed were the non-compliance with a court order and the role of counsel in this violation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that all parties are obliged to comply with court orders, and failure to do so, especially with the aid of counsel, could lead to a finding of contempt, which was established beyond reasonable doubt in this case.
Result: The Court held the Respondents and their lawyer in contempt of court.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal ownership and loan agreements. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. high court decisions and fraud allegations. (Para 13 , 16 , 18) |
| 3. federal court's standard of proof analysis. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 4. obedience to court orders and contempt. (Para 57 , 61) |
| 5. finding of contempt of court. (Para 70) |
JUDGMENT
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 20.6.2017;
(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 20.6.2017 dan melemahkan pentadbiran keadilan dan keyakinan awam terhadap badan Kehakiman;
(3)Mohamed Haniff B 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 20.6.2017, memalukan Hakim-Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan yang mendengar dan memutuskan Perintah Mahkamah Persekutuan bertarikh 20.6.2017 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 B 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 paragraph 3 of the Federal Court Order dated 27.5.2019:
(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 27.5.2019 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 20.6.2017, memalukan Hakim-Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan yang mendengar dan memutuskan perintah Mahkamah Persekutuan bertarikh 20.6.2017 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 29.5.2019 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 th
