Back
2011 MarsdenLR 4943
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
TAN SRI DATO DR ROZALI ISMAIL & ORS – Appellant
Versus
LIM PANG CHEONG & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Application No: 08-144-2011(W)]
Committal proceedings require strict adherence to procedural safeguards, and contempt allegations must be substantiated beyond reasonable doubt, failing which they can be struck out.
Headnote:(A) Rules of the High Court 1980 - Order 52, Rule 2(2) - Leave for committal application - Respondents applied to set aside the ex parte leave granted for committal proceedings against them - Court assessed the definition of contempt of court and the requirement of strict compliance with procedural safeguards in committal proceedings - Upon evaluating facts, the court concluded that the release of the funds occurred before the preservation order was served - Thus, no breach of the order could be established. (Paras 18-57)
(B) Contempt of court - Definition and Jurisprudence - Defined as conduct that brings the authority of law into disrespect or interferes with the administration of justice, thus justifying the court's inherent power to punish. (Paras 20-22)
(C) Procedural safeguards - The court emphasized the necessity for strict adherence to procedural rules in committal proceedings, specifically regarding the requirements of an affidavit verifying facts prior to an application for leave. (Paras 24-29)
Act Referred
Rules of the Federal Court: S.the RFC
Courts of Judicature Act 1964: S.13
Federal Constitution: Article 126
[1] On 19 May 2011, this court gave leave to the applicants to commence committal proceedings against the respondents. The leave was granted pursuant to O 52 r 2(2) of the Rules of the High 1980("the RHC") read together with r 3 of the Rules of the Federal ("the RFC"). The committal proceeding was set down for hearing before us on 14 December 2011. However, the respondents had in the meantime applied for the leave order to be set aside. Since leave was granted by us on an ex parte basis, it is within the inherent power of this court to revoke the same if it is of the view that the original leave was granted under a misapprehension upon new matters being placed before it. (See Lord Denning MR in Becker v. Neol and Another [1971] 1 WLR 803). Having heard the parties, we allowed the respondents' applications and set aside our earlier order. We now give our reasons for the decision.
