Singapore Court holds that a mistaken belief as to the validity of a court order is no defence to contempt by disobedience under the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016
Insights
In the recent decision of Madison Pacific Trust Limited and ors v PT Dewata Wibawa and ors [2024] SGHC 184 (“Madison Pacific”), the General Division of the High Court has held that an alleged contemnor’s mistake as to the validity of a court order does not come within the defence in s 21 of the AJPA.
Introduction
The law on contempt of court in Singapore has been governed by the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 (Act 19 of 2016) (the “AJPA”) since 1 October 2017. Section 4(1) of the AJPA provides that a person commits a contempt of court if he intentionally disobeys or breaches any judgment, decree, direction or order of a court. Section 21 of the AJPA, however, introduces a defence of “honest and reasonable mistake” in providing that a person will not be liable if his non-compliance with the court order is attributable to an “honest and reasonable failure by that person…to understand an obligation imposed on the person bound by the judgment, order, decree, direction, writ, process or undertaking and that that person ought fairly to be excused”.
In the recent decision of Madison Pacific Trust Limited and ors v PT Dewata Wibawa and ors [2024] SGHC 184 (“Madison Pacific”), the General Division of the High Court has held that an alleged contemnor’s mistake as to the validity of a court order does not come within the defence in s 21 of the AJPA. Instead, the defence only applies where the alleged contemnor failed to understand the nature of the obligation imposed on him. The decision in Madison Pacific confirms that s 21 of the AJPA is consistent with the traditional common law position that an order of court may not be disregarded on the basis of a belief that it has been wrongly made.
Setia Law’s Danny Ong, Yam Wern-Jhien, Bethel Chan and Ayana Ki successfully represented the applicants. The decision is under appeal.
Facts
The applicants obtained an anti-suit injunction from the Singapore Court (the “ASI Order”) which restrained the defendants from proceeding or continuing with, or assisting or participating in, the prosecution of certain proceedings in the courts of Jakarta, Indonesia. After the defendants failed to comply with the ASI Order, the applicants applied for a committal order against the third defendant for his contempt of court committed (a) in his personal capacity pursuant to s 4(1)(a) of the AJPA for intentionally disobeying and/or breaching the ASI Order; and (b) in his capacity as the first defendant’s sole director, pursuant to s 6(2) read with s 4(1) AJPA, for being knowingly concerned in and/or a party to the commission of the first defendant’s contempt of court by intentionally disobeying and/or breaching the ASI Order.
The third defendant, who was a citizen and resident of Indonesia, claimed that he had believed, based on the advice of his Indonesian lawyers, that the ASI Order was not effective and/or binding on him because the relevant court papers and originating process leading up to the issuance of the ASI Order were not validly served on him in Indonesia. Even if this was wrong, the third defendant argued that this would be an “honest and reasonable mistake” which afforded him a defence under s 21 of the AJPA.
The decision: a mistake as to the validity of a court order is no defence under s 21 AJPA
Justice Chua Lee Ming rejected the third defendant’s argument, holding that a mistake as to the validity of a court order did not fall within the defence in s 21 of the AJPA. In so holding, Justice Chua departed from the view taken in another decision of the General Division of the High Court, VFV v VFU [2021] 5 SLR 1428, that for the purposes of s 21 of the AJPA, the mistake may pertain to the validity of the court order itself and need not relate to the substantive contents of the court order.
Justice Chua reasoned that:
- the ordinary meaning of the words “failure to understand an obligation” meant a failure to understand the substance or nature of the obligation that was to be complied with, and not its validity;
- the legislative intent behind s 21 of the AJPA (as discerned from the relevant parliamentary debates) was to provide a defence where a person did not understand what the court had ordered; and
- the third defendant’s position that s 21 of the AJPA could apply to a mistake as to the validity of a court order was inconsistent with the common law position that as long as an order stands, it is to be respected and obeyed and may not be disregarded on the basis of a belief that the order is wrong, irregular or void. There was nothing to suggest that s 21 of the AJPA was intended to depart from the common law position.
On the facts of the case, Justice Chua also noted that, in any event, the third defendant’s mistake as to the validity of the order was neither honest nor reasonable.
Sentence imposed for contempt of court
Having found the third defendant liable for contempt, Justice Chua noted that the third defendant’s conduct was egregious and agreed with the applicants that a custodial sentence was called for. The third defendant was, however, provided with a chance to purge his contempt by complying and procuring the first defendant to comply with the ASI Order by 7 June 2024, failing which he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two months for each offence of under ss 4(1)(a) and s 6(2) of the AJPA (see above).
Notably, this was the first reported instance of a custodial sentence being imposed by the Singapore Court for contempt by disobedience of an anti-suit injunction.
Contact:
Director
wern.jhien.yam@setialaw.com
