Allport Alfred James v Wong Soon Lan

Judgment Date07 December 1988
Date07 December 1988
Docket NumberDivorce Petition No 593 of 1987
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Allport Alfred James
Plaintiff
and
Wong Soon Lan
Defendant

[1988] SGHC 93

Chao Hick Tin JC

Divorce Petition No 593 of 1987

High Court

Civil Procedure–Injunctions–Prohibitory injunction–Order served without penal notice indorsed–Non-compliance with order–Whether omission of penal notice critical to enforcement of order–Whether case can be treated as if no order served–O 45 rr 7 (4) and 7 (6) The Rules of the Supreme Court 1970

The petitioner applied for an order of committal to be made against the respondent on the ground that the respondent had committed contempt of court in disobeying an ex parte order restraining her from disposing the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial property. The court found that she had undoubtedly failed to comply with the injunction. The issue was whether the court could enforce the injunction by a committal order when a copy of the order that was served on the respondent was not indorsed with the penal notice as required under O 45 r 7 (4) of The Rules of the Supreme Court 1970 (“the RSC”).

Held, dismissing the application:

(1) The court's powers to punish any person for civil contempt were quasi-criminal in nature. Any prescribed procedural step to the exercise of that jurisdiction should be scrupulously observed and strictly complied with. The rationale for a penal notice was to ensure that the person against whom the order was made fully appreciated the consequences of any non-compliance. As such, the omission to indorse the penal notice on the order served on the respondent was fatal: at [8].

(2) It would be improper to treat the order as not having been served and enforce it by virtue of O 45 r 7 (6) of the RSC. To do so would amount to saying that an order for a prohibitory injunction need not be drawn up as required by O 45 r 7 (4) before enforcement was carried out. That would be in conflict with what was stated in r 7 (4). As the liberty of a person was involved, the prescribed rule had to be strictly adhered to: at [11].

Hampden v Wallis (1884) 26 Ch D 746 (folld)

Husson v Husson [1962] 1 WLR 1434; [1962] 3 All ER 1056 (distd)

Stockton Football Co v Gaston [1895] 1 QB 453 (folld)

United Telephone Co v Dale (1884) 25 Ch D 778 (distd)

Rules of the Supreme Court 1970, TheO 45rr 7 (4), 7 (6) (consd)

Rules of the Supreme Court1883 (UK)O XLIr 5

Vijay Kumar (Vijay Perumal & Jeremiah) for the petitioner/applicant

J S Yeh (J S Yeh & Co) for the respondent.

Chao Hick Tin JC

1 By this motion the petitioner applies for an order of committal to be made against the respondent on the ground that the respondent has committed contempt of court in disobeying anex parte order made on 2 April 1987 restraining her from disposing the sum of $313,000, being the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial property, situated at 14 Fulton Road, Singapore.

2 The said ex parte order was served personally on the respondent on 3 April 1987. On an application by the respondent to discharge the interim injunction, the court on 22 May 1987 ordered that the said interim injunction be continued.

3 The petition for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Abdul Aziz bin Mohamed Yatim v Rubiah bte Rahmat
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 14 d4 Dezembro d4 2006
    ...which was accepted in Polygram Records Sdn Bhd and Others v Phua Tai Eng [1984-1985] SLR 810 and in Allport Alfred James v Wong Soon Lan [1988] SLR 987 (later reversed by the Court of Appeal but not on this point). Perhaps the clearest articulation of the relevant principles is contained in......
  • Serafica Rogelio T v Transocean Offshore Ventures Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 24 d1 Junho d1 2013
    ...debtor was specifically governed by O 48 and the rules in O 38 were not relevant: at [30]. Allport Alfred James v Wong Soon Lan [1988] 2 SLR (R) 520; [1988] SLR 987 (refd) Consistel Pte Ltd v Farooq Nasir [2009] 3 SLR (R) 665; [2009] 3 SLR 665 (refd) Masri v Consolidated Contractors Interna......
  • Abdul Aziz bin Mohamed Yatim v Rubiah bte Rahmat
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 31 d3 Agosto d3 2005
    ...Lim Hui Min concluded from her review of the decisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal in Allport Alfred James v Wong Soon Lan [1988] SLR 987 and [1992] 2 SLR 385 that the absence of a penal notice in the order (which was a mandatory order) was fatal to the committal 5 The relevan......
  • QU v QV
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 10 d1 Março d1 2008
    ...an order of court that lacks certainty is contrary to our established notions of justice. In Allport Alfred James v Wong Soon Lan [1988] SLR 987, Chao Hick Tin JC said at 989, [8] that the court’s power to punish a person for civil contempt was quasi-criminal in nature, and where any proced......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Family Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2004, December 2004
    • 1 d3 Dezembro d3 2004
    ...required under O 45 r 7(4) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed). The High Court held in Allport Alfred James v Wong Soon Lan[1988] SLR 987 (‘Allport’) that such absence of a penal notice indorsed on the copy of the order of court served on the respondent was fatal to an applica......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT