Back
2021 MarsdenLR 4156
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)
Contempt of court arises from willful disobedience to court orders, emphasizing judicial authority's protection and proper adherence to the legal process over baseless claims of bias.
Headnote:(A) Federal Court Rules 1995 - Rule 137 - Moneylenders Act 1951 - Contempt of Court proceedings - Respondents and their counsel found guilty of contempt for disobeying a Federal Court order requiring them to return title deeds within a specified period - Court emphasized the need to uphold judicial authority and warned against allegations undermining judicial integrity. (Paras 40, 62-70)
(B) Standard of Proof - Court ruled that 'irresistible conclusion' standard cannot be equated to 'beyond reasonable doubt' in civil proceedings, and that all cases apply consistently as established in Sinnaiyah & Sons Sdn Bhd v Damai Setia Sdn Bhd. (Paras 23, 24)
Facts of the case:
This case involves committal proceedings against individuals and their legal counsel due to their blatant disregard for a court order to return property titles, which had been affirmed despite challenges through review applications by the respondents. The High Court initially declared the transfers of properties null and void based on alleged fraud and misrepresentation. (Paras 16, 17, 18)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Respondents willfully disobeyed a Federal Court order, showcasing a clear contempt for judicial authority, and stressed the importance of compliance with court orders to maintain public confidence in the judicial system. (Paras 63-70)
Issues: The primary issue was whether the respondents and their counsel acted in contempt of court by failing to comply with an order to return property titles while filing multiple review applications against the order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that both the Respondents and their counsel ignored the Federal Court order for compliance, which led to the conclusion that their actions constituted contempt as they didn’t seek proper remedies through the judicial system. (Paras 62-70)
Result: Respondents and counsel found guilty of contempt of court and sanctioned accordingly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of committal and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. details of properties and loan agreements. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. introduction of claims and court proceedings history. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. federal court's decision on appeal. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 5. overview of review applications and committal initiations. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 34) |
| 6. arguments presented by both parties regarding contempt. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 7. court's examination of contempt and review applications. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 60 , 63) |
| 8. conclusion on contempt allegations and court's decision. (Para 47 , 48 , 52 , 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 Moha
