Allport Alfred James v Wong Soon Lan

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chua F A J
• Judgment Date: 12 May 1992
• Neutral Citation: [1992] SGCA 38
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 1 of 1989
• Date: 12 May 1992
• Year: 1992
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Vijay Kumar Rai (Sukumar & Teo)
• Citation: [1992] SGCA 38
• Defendant Counsel: Eng Hwi Cheng (JS Yeh & Co)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Contempt,Courts and Jurisdiction,Construction of O 45 rr 5, 7(2)(a), (4) & (6) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1970,Interim injunction requiring person to abstain from doing an act,Committal for contempt,Absence of penal notice on copy of order for injunction,Civil contempt,Whether fatal to an application for committal for contempt

(delivering the grounds of judgment of the court): On 1 April 1987 the appellant filed a petition for divorce and, at the same time, made an application ex parte for an interim injunction restraining the respondent from disposing of the sum of $313,000, representing the net proceeds of sale of the matrimonial property known as No 14 Fulton Road, Singapore. On 2 April 1987, the interim injunction was granted ex parte, and a copy of the order was served personally on the respondent on the following day, but it was not indorsed with the penal notice prescribed under O 45 r 7(4) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1970. On the same day, the appellant filed a notice of motion applying for the continuation of the interim injunction. The respondent resisted the application and sought to discharge the injunction. In one of her affidavits filed in support, she said that as at 3 April 1987 when the order was served on her, the balance of the proceeds of sale stood at $78,298.14. Nonetheless, at the hearing of the motion on 22 May 1987 the court made an order for the continuation of the injunction until further order or until the hearing of the petition for divorce. A copy of the order was served on the respondents solicitors, and again it did not contain the penal notice required under O 45 r 7(4).

The divorce petition came on for hearing before AP Rajah J on 18 January 1988. It was contested and was heard over four days. At the conclusion, on 19 February 1988, a decree nisi for divorce was granted to the appellant on the ground that the marriage had irretrievably broken down in that the respondent had behaved in such a way that the petitioner could not reasonably be expected to live with her. The learned judge, in granting the decree nisi, said this with reference to the disposal of the property:

Again the circumstances in which the matrimonial home was sold by the respondent were, to say the least, reprehensible, especially in the light of what has happened to the proceeds of the sale. Even up to today she has not been able to account for or to inform the petitioner as to what has happened to the proceeds of sale; some of the items which she says she has expended on the house are hard to believe.

In those circumstances, the interim injunction restraining the respondent from disposing of the amount of proceeds of sale was continued until further order. The decree nisi containing the injunction was served on the respondents solicitors, and again, as regards the injunction, no penal notice was indorsed thereon.

In due course, on 14 March 1988, the ancillary matter came on for hearing before AP Rajah J. The respondent, in her evidence before the learned judge, said, among other things, that she was told of the order dated 22 May 1987 by her solicitor, that at that time she had a thousand-odd dollars in the bank, that before that date she had withdrawn $174,000 which she deposited with a New Zealand bank, that the sum was drawn out in April 1987, that as at 14 March 1988 she did not have any more money and that she had indulged in gambling and horse-racing and had spent all the money realized from the sale of the property. Having heard the evidence before him, the learned judge made the following observation: As far as I can see you are in contempt of the court in that you spent whatever proceeds were in your hands at the date of the order of SK Chan JC given on 22 May 1987 and thereafter. He ordered an inquiry to be held for, inter alia, an account of the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial property.

On 15 April 1988 the appellant applied for leave, and leave was granted, to make an application for an order of committal against the respondent for contempt of court in disobeying the injunction. Accordingly, the appellant filed the notice of motion applying for a committal order. The application...