Federal Court Committal Technicality
Federal Court Committal Technicality
Federal Court Committal Technicality
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
BETWEEN
AND
INTRODUCTION
1980(“the RHC”) read together with rule. 3 of the Rules of the Federal
Court (“the RFC”). The committal proceeding was set down for
the mean time applied for the leave order to be set aside. Since leave
power of this Court to revoke the same if it is of the view that the
2
Having heard the parties, we allowed the respondents’ applications
and set aside our earlier order. We now give our reasons for the
decision.
THE FACTS
in the High Court for breach of the alleged oral contract between the
1st applicant and the 1st respondent, in which the 1st applicant is said
procuring a government project for the 3rd applicant. After a full trial,
the High Court allowed the 1st respondent’s claim with costs and
Kumar Jaspal Quah & Aishah (“the Firm”). It is not in dispute that all
respondent, who is a consultant in the Firm. The 3rd, 4th and 5th
3
[ 4 ] Dissatisfied, the applicants appealed to the Court of Appeal against
the whole decision of the High Court. At the same time, they also
pending the disposal of the appeal. However, before the High Court
High Court Stay Application. The consent order was conditional upon
the Judgment Sum and interests being paid to Messrs. Zul Rafique &
Account.
application.
4
The Court of Appeal
application was heard inter-parte by the Court of Appeal and the court
[ 8 ] Later in the afternoon of the same day, the Stakeholder released the
the Stakeholder’s bank account kept with RHB Bank Berhad. The
Court for an order, inter alia, to preserve the Released Sum in the
hand of the Firm. This Court had on 2.3.2011 allowed the application
5
and granted an ex-parte preservation order over the Released Sum
(“the Ex-Parte Preservation Order”). This Court then directed the Ex-
[10] In the meantime, on 2.3.2011 the applicants’ solicitor served the Ex-
Parte Preservation Order on the 2nd respondent and the Firm vide e-
mail at or about 3.49 pm. The same was also served on the Firm vide
[11] In opposing the inter-parte application for the preservation order, the
Affidavit, the 1st respondent deposed that the Released Sum had
follows:
6
“(a) The Released Sum was no longer in the possession of
2.3.2011.
(b) The Released Sum had been disbursed by cash out of the
respectively.
respondent’s instruction.”
7
[12] On 9.3.2011, this Court dismissed the applicants’ application for inter-
parte preservation order on the sole ground that subject matter of the
[13] Subsequent to that, the applicants alleged that they had received an
Preservation Order was served on the Firm) the Released Sum was
still in the possession of the Firm and not disbursed out as deposed
alleged that what transpired on the material date was that the cash
were used to purchase 2 bank drafts in the name of the Firm from
RHB Bank Berhad KLCC Branch. The said sums were still with the
Firm when the Ex-Parte Preservation Order was served on the Firm.
[14] On that premise, the applicant alleged that the 1st respondent had
8
respondent had interfered with the due administration of justice
[15] The applicants’ solicitor had on 17.3.201 wrote to the Firm enquiring
dealt with and in what manner they had been withdrawn. However, on
but declined to furnish details on how the Released Sum was dealt
with.
Order was in fact served on the Firm vide an email, the Firm
was stated that he does not open his email every day. In short, they
9
Leave For Committal Application in the Federal Court
[18] Against that background, the applicants applied for leave of this Court
for the order of committal against all the respondents. The 1st
committed contempt for aiding and abetting the 1st respondent. While
the 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents were alleged to be similarly liable as
10
knowing the same to be untrue and false and the 2nd, 3rd, 4th
[20] In dealing with the applications to set aside the leave for committal
11
[21] The jurisprudence for arming the court with the power to punish a
from statute nor truly from common law but instead flows from
the very concept of a court of law. (See Borrie & Lowe’s The
[23] Article 126 of the Federal Constitution empowers the Federal Court,
the Court of Appeal and the High Courts to punish any contempt of
12
the RHC may be adopted. Thus, an applicant can bring contempt
Criminal Procedure Code or the Penal Code even if the relief sought
Berhad & Ors [1986] 2 MLJ 193 and Chung Onn v Wee Tian Peng
13
1 All ER 997 observed it as „unhelpful and almost meaningless
(Supra) at p.362:-
14
[27] This reclassification was adopted by the Court of Appeal in Jasa
Keramat Sdn. Bhd. V Monatech (M) Sdn. Bhd. [2001] 4 MLJ 577
(CA).
[28] Hence, the law of contempt is wide enough to cover not only those
who are bound by the court order, but other parties who assist the
neither named in any order of the court nor had assisted a person
involves the liberty of the alleged contemnor. Premised upon that, the
15
secure that the alleged contemnor knows clearly what
support of it.
may have been done. For example, if the notice has not
all about it, and indeed attends the hearing of the motion,
16
everything before the motion comes on, and indeed
with.”
17
[31] Later, in Re Bramblevale Ltd [1970] 1 Ch 125, Lord Denning
in at p.137)
motion for committal before him to be bad because it failed on its face
plaintiffs complained.
[33] The same spirit was echoed in Chiltern District Council v Keane
observation:-
with.”
18
The Safeguards Under O. 52 of the RHC
for a committal order can be made without leave of the court. The
2 of the RHC.
this rule.
19
be filed before the application is made, verifying the
statement.
[37] We wish to state in clear term that the alleged act of contempt must
the charge. This must be done within the four walls of the statement
itself. The same approach was taken by the Supreme Court in Arthur
[38] Reverting to the present case, the first ground raised by the
20
RHC. Counsel for the respondents contended that the statement and
O.52 r. 2(2) of the RHC, must be filed before the date of filing of the
[39] In the present case, the applicants, had initially on 12.4.2011 filed the
Notice of Motion [“Encl.2 (a)”] together with the applicants’ 1st affidavit
[“Encl. 2(d)”]. On 26.4.2011 the applicants filed the 2nd affidavit [“Encl.
pursuant to O.52 r.2 (2) of the RHC [“Encl. 9”]. And on 3.5.2011, the
applicants filed the 3rd affidavit [“Encl. 12(a)”]. Learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that since Encl. 8(a) and Encl. 12(a) were filed
after the date of filing of the notice of motion for leave, the applicants
Brothers Sdn. Bhd. v Wong Boon Sun & Ors and Another Appeal
[2010] 4 CLJ 64. In that case Zaleha Zahari JCA in delivering the
21
“We are in agreement with the High Court Judge that the filing
motion. The High Court Judge was right in ruling that such non
[41] In response, counsel for the applicants submitted that the Court of
Appeal in Follin & Brothers Sdn. Bhd. (Supra) failed to consider the
principle of law laid down in the Supreme Court case of Arthur Lee
Meng Kwang (Supra). There, Mohamed Azmi SCJ (as he then was)
22
contempt procedure which is normally resorted to only in urgent
Prosecutor].”
should be dismissed.
[42] In our view, what O.52 r.2(2) stipulates is that an affidavit verifying
the facts must be filed before the application is made. We agree with
counsel for the applicant that the word “application” here cannot be
read to mean “filing” but rather the hearing of the application by the
court. In this regard, we fully agree with the view expressed in Arthur
Lee Meng Kwang (Supra). In that case, the objections were that:
“(1) The Motion does not state that it has been issued
23
(3) The original documents in the ex-parte application
advocate.
[43] It was held that the alleged procedural defect No. (1) and No. (3) are
the view of Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin J (as he then was) in the case
of Soceite Jas Hennesy & Co. & Anor. v. Nguang Chan (M) Sdn
[44] Similarly, in the present case, we are of the view that the irregularities
earlier.
24
[46] It cannot be denied that upon the stakeholder’s cheque for the
Released Sum being cleared into the firm’s RHB account, they were
monies belonging to the 1st respondent. The clearing into the RHB
account took place on 1.3.2011 itself and this was disclosed in the 1 st
is disputed is whether the Released Sum was paid out of the RHB
on 3.3.2011.
25
First Tranche: RM 3.5 million (cleared out on 1.3.2011)
for the sum of RM 3.5 million and withdrew this sum in cash at
3:47:08 p.m. The monies were paid over to various 3rd parties on
the utilization of the First Tranche on 1.3.2011 did not violate the Ex-
26
Second Tranche: RM31,500,007.00 (“the Trust Monies”) cleared out on
1.3.2011
[50] The Second Tranche involved the withdrawal of monies in cash and
1.3.2011.
8(a) and 12(a), the encashment and transfer out of these monies
[52] The respondents further contended that when the trust monies were
paid to the Trustee, they no longer belong to the 1st respondent. And
the fact that the Trustee chose to retain the Firm as its solicitors does
not render the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents guilty of any breach of
27
Third Tranche : RM87,128.06 (cleared on 2.3.2011)
[53] The 3rd respondent paid the sum of RM87,128.06 on the 1st
the RHB account on 2.3.2011 itself and this is reflected in the Firm’s
Findings
[55] Thus, from the evidence before us, it is clear that the entire Released
Sums were paid out and cleared from the RHB account at the latest
by 2.3.2011, that is one day prior to the service of the notice of Ex-
of breach of the said Order does not arise. Similarly the averments in
28
On that premise, we hold that para. 3 of the statement filed in
[56] The complaint against 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents is for aiding
and abetting the 1st respondent. Since, we find that the complaint
CONCLUSION
set aside the leave order issued against them and hence, the motion
costs.
t.t
29
Counsel for the Applicants : 1. K. Kirubakaram
2. B.E. Teh
3. Fadzilah Pilus
2. Regina Ho
Solicitors for the 2nd Respondent : Messrs Kumar Jaspal Quah &
Aishah
30
Counsel for the 3rd Respondent : Krishna Dallumah
& Indran
Negeri Sembilan
Damansara Heights,
31