Ong Wui Teck v Attorney-General
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Judith Prakash JA |
Judgment Date | 24 March 2020 |
Neutral Citation | [2020] SGCA 17 |
Defendant Counsel | Khoo Boo Jin, Elaine Liew, Lee Hui Min and Ashley Ong (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal Nos 33 and 112 of 2019 |
Date | 24 March 2020 |
Hearing Date | 19 February 2020 |
Plaintiff Counsel | The appellant in person |
Year | 2020 |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Citation | [2020] SGCA 17 |
Published date | 28 March 2020 |
These appeals arise out of a court finding that Mr Ong Wui Teck, the appellant herein, was guilty of contempt of court in relation to statements made by him in two affidavits. These affidavits (“the OS 165 Affidavits”) were filed by the appellant in support of his recusal application in Originating Summons No 165 of 2016 (“OS 165”). In OS 165, the appellant had sought to disqualify Justice Woo Bih Li (“Woo J”) from hearing all actions relating to the estate of the appellant’s mother. In the OS 165 Affidavits, the appellant had made a number of allegations of bias, dishonesty and impropriety against Woo J (“the Allegations”). The Allegations led the Attorney-General, the respondent in these appeals, to apply for an order of committal against the appellant for contempt of court.
The committal proceedings were heard in the High Court in August 2018. After consideration of the evidence and the submissions, the High Court Judge (“the Judge”) found the appellant guilty of scandalising contempt and contempt in the face of the Court. Her reasons can be found in
The facts have been set out in detail in the
The appellant was the administrator of the estates of his father (“the Father’s Estate”) and of his mother (“the Mother’s Estate”). Due to this appointment, he had been involved in various disputes with his sister, Ms Ong Wui Soon (“the Sister”), in Suit No 385 of 2011 (“Suit 385”) concerning the Father’s Estate. These disputes were adjudicated by Woo J, who found in favour of the appellant in relation to the most valuable assets in the Father’s Estate. Woo J also held, however, that the appellant had failed to give a proper account of the assets of the Father’s Estate. He thus ordered an inquiry to determine the net total value of the Father’s Estate for distribution to the beneficiaries (“the Inquiry”). Woo J’s grounds of decision can be found in
The Inquiry was conducted by an Assistant Registrar (“the AR”). The AR found that the Father’s Estate had a positive value of $15,756 and ordered the appellant to pay the Sister her one-twelfth share of the Father’s Estate and her costs of the Inquiry. The appellant was granted an extension of time to appeal out of time against the AR’s decision in the Inquiry and filed his appeal (“RA 54”). The Sister in turn appealed against the grant of an extension of time to the appellant (“RA 72”). We shall hereafter refer to RA 54 and RA 72 collectively as “the Registrar’s Appeals”.
The Registrar’s Appeals came on for hearing together before a Judicial Commissioner (“the JC”). At the hearing, counsel for the Sister submitted that both appeals should be heard before Woo J as he was more familiar with the matter. The appellant did not object and the Registrar’s Appeals were then adjourned to be heard before Woo J. In May 2014, Woo J heard the Registrar’s Appeals. He held that the appellant should not have been granted an extension of time. RA 72 was, therefore, allowed while RA 54, the appellant’s appeal against the outcome of the Inquiry, was dismissed. Woo J, however, changed the costs’ order made by the AR in respect of the Inquiry from costs to be taxed to fixed costs of $400. This part of the decision was in the appellant’s favour. The grounds of this decision can be found in
The appellant appealed against the findings in the
In 2013, the Sister sought a revocation of the appellant’s appointment as the executor of the Mother’s Estate. The Sister’s application in the District Court was dismissed, and she appealed to the High Court by District Court Appeal No 21 of 2015 (“DCA 21”). The appellant then filed Originating Summons No 11 of 2016 (“OS 11”) to,
The appellant and the Sister’s counsel attended a pre-trial conference in the High Court on 26 January 2016 (“the PTC”). They were informed by an Assistant Registrar that Woo J was scheduled to hear DCA 21 and OS 11. Two days later, the appellant sent a letter to the Chief Justice of Singapore, alleging that Woo J’s “independence is compromised”. On 22 February 2016, the appellant filed OS 165 seeking an order that Woo J be recused. On 4 March 2016, Woo J heard OS 165 and, while he found that the appellant’s allegations of bias were baseless, he recused himself as he intended to lodge a formal complaint against the appellant for contempt. Woo J’s reasoning can be found in
In May 2016, the respondent informed the appellant that the Allegations made in the OS 165 Affidavits were in contempt of court. The respondent requested that the appellant withdraw the Allegations and apologise to both Woo J and the Supreme Court. The appellant refused to do so. After a preliminary leave application was heard and allowed, the respondent applied for an order of committal against the appellant under O 52 r 2(2) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed). As the focus of these appeals is on whether the Allegations constitute fair criticism made in good faith, it is necessary for us to set them out in some detail. The Allegations can be grouped into five categories.
First, allegations of extreme bias:
Second, allegations that the Suit 385 Costs Order was made for an ulterior purpose:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Png Hock Leng v AXA Insurance Pte Ltd
...Pte Ltd [2022] 1 SLR 884 (refd) Noor Azlin bte Abdul Rahman v Changi General Hospital Pte Ltd [2021] 2 SLR 440 (refd) Ong Wui Teck v AG [2020] 1 SLR 855 (refd) Prometheus Marine Pte Ltd v King, Ann Rita [2018] 1 SLR 1 (refd) Raman Dhir v MCST Plan No 1374 [2021] 4 SLR 1215 (refd) Soh Rui Yo......
-
Png Hock Leng v AXA Insurance Pte Ltd
...Ang Saw Ean JAD (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction As noted by the Court of Appeal in Ong Wui Teck v Attorney-General [2020] 1 SLR 855 (“Ong Wui Teck”) at [26], the Oath of Office taken by every judge, judicial commissioner and senior judge of the Supreme Court of Singapor......
-
Panchalai a/p Supermaniam and another v Public Prosecutor
...These issues are clearly quite far removed from the second applicant’s guilt. As we observed in Ong Wui Teck v Attorney-General [2020] 1 SLR 855 at [26], the Oath of Office taken by every judge, judicial commissioner and senior judge of the Supreme Court of Singapore pursuant to Art 97(1) o......