Reebok International Ltd v Ng Whye Tho (trading as Reebok Sports)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chan Sek Keong JC
• Judgment Date: 30 March 1988
• Neutral Citation: [1988] SGHC 29
• Docket Number: Motion in Suit No 2312 of 1987
• Date: 30 March 1988
• Year: 1988
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tan Woon Tiang (Arthur Loke & Partners)
• Citation: [1988] SGHC 29
• Defendant Counsel: NS Kang (NS Kang)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Civil contempt,Undertaking not given in lieu of court order,Order of court not complied with,Undertaking given to comply with order of court,Whether order of court still in force,Contempt of Court

Cur Adv Vult

This is an application by the applicants to commit the respondent to prison for contempt of court on the following grounds:

(1) On 28 August 1987, the applicants obtained an order of court (the order of court) which, inter alia, directed the respondent, within seven days of the service of the said order on him, to file and serve on the applicants` solicitors an affidavit setting forth, so far as was known to the respondent, the names and addresses of all persons, firms or companies:

(a) to whom the respondent had supplied;

(b) from whom the respondent had obtained supplies; and

(c) who have ordered from the respondent any of the `Reebok` shoes referred to in para 1 of the order of court and do disclose in such affidavit the dates of each such supply by or to the respondent, and the quantities and consideration therefor, and do exhibit to the said affidavit copies of all relevant documents including invoices, bills, receipts, shipping documents, orders, contracts, letters of credit and copies thereof relating thereto and which are in the respondent`s possession, custody or control.

(2) The order of court was served on the respondent by leaving a copy thereof at the office of the respondent on 28 August 1987 and by serving the same on the respondent`s solicitors at their request on 2 September 1987.

(3) The respondent failed to file an affidavit in compliance with the order of court and thereupon the applicants applied for an order of committal against the respondent. At the hearing of the applicants` motion for committal on 27 November 1987, the applicants were granted leave by the court to withdraw their application for committal upon counsel for the respondent giving an undertaking to the court that the respondent would file the requisite affidavit within seven days thereof.

(4) The respondent failed to file the affidavit within seven days but only on 7 December 1987, ie ten days from the date of the giving of undertaking.

(5) The applicants` case was that the affidavit filed on 7 December 1987 did not disclose all the relevant information and numerous exhibits were omitted therefrom. On being requested twice by the applicants` solicitors to do so, the respondent filed a supplemental affidavit on 18 December 1987. Again, the applicants` solicitors were not satisfied and pointed out to the respondent`s solicitors that the supplemental affidavit did not disclose all relevant information.

(6) On 29 December 1987, the applicants applied for and obtained leave of the court to apply for a committal order against the respondent.

Counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection to this application. His contention is that as the application is based on the respondent`s failure to comply with the...