Contempt of Court

Meaning of Contempt:

1. Every AS is an office of the Court. The court has an inherent jurisdiction in disciplinary matters
over its officers, which is based on its absolute right to see that a high standard of conduct is
maintained by them.
2. The court in Manjeet Singh and Arthur Lee approved the definition of contempt by Lord Russel
in Gray who said that contempt of court is any act or writing:
a. Calculated to bring the court or judge into contempt or lower his authority;
b. To obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice or lawful process of the court.
However, Lord Russel also said that ‘Courts or judges alike, are open to critisicm’.
3. In Arthur Lee Meng Kwang v Faber Merlin Malaysia Bhd & ors and Trustees of Leong San Tong,
etc, the Supreme Court held that criticism must be within limits of reasonable courtesy and
good faith and there is a need to protect the dignity and integrity of the Supreme Court and
High Court which is recognized by Article 126 Federal Constitution and also by Section 13 Courts
of Judicature Act 1964 (hereinafter CJA). Also Section 99A of the 3 rd Schedule Subordinate Courts
Act 1948 (hereinafter SCA) states that a balance must be struck between freedom of speech as
provided by Article 10 of the Federal Constiitution and the need to protect the dignity and
integrity of the Supreme Court in the interest of maintaining public confidence in the judiciary.
The court should also not lose sight of local conditions.
4. Edmund Ming Kwan v Extra Excel (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd & Ors; to establish contempt, the High
Court held that it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the person intended to
obstruct or frustrate the administration of justice.
5. What amounts to contempt of court is illustrated in the cases below:
a. Jasa Keramat Sdn Bhd v Monatech (M) Sdn Bhd; the Court of Appeal held that
disspating assets by the directors when a Mareva Injunction existed was not contempt
of court but an interference in the administration of justice.
b. Zainuddin Muhammad v Atsco Ltd; the Court of Appeal (hereinafter COA) held that
failure to furnish a full account of all the appellant’s assets as required by an order of
the court amounted to contempt.
c. Tommy Thomas v Peguam Negara Malaysia; the COA held that it amounted to
contempt when the appellant issued a press statement criticizing the court in breach of
an undertaking given in the HC.
d. Dato’ Abdullah Hishan Hj Mohd Hashim v Sharma Kumari Shukia (No.4); the HC held
that failure by Defendant (a bankrupt) to comply with Section 16(3) Bankruptcy Act
1967 for not submitting the statement of affairs amounted to contempt.
e. Lee Chan Leong v Jurutera Konsultant (SEA) Sdn Bhd & Ors; The COA held that writing a
letter by the counsel to the Chief Judge to transfer the case from KL High Court to Shah
Alam High Court did not amount to contempt of court as it did not obstruct the course
of justice nor was it libel against the Judge
 f. Thiruchel Vasegaram Manickavasegar v Mahadevi Nadchatiram; an injunction order
was given to prohibit D from publishing the libelous statements. Whilst the injunctive
order was in force, the D submitted the libelous statements to the investigating. This
amounted to contempt.
g. Metro Giant Group Sdn Bhd v Gala Sari Resources Sdn Bhd & Ors; the HC held that the
3 written letters which were antedated in order to show evidence of the record of the
payments did not constitute contempt unless they were intended to mislead the Court.
h. Hermon Ando v Tachland Development Sdn Bhd; the COA held that appellant
developer was guilty of contempt of court when it deliverately breached the mandatory
order to repair the damage caused to the Plaintiff’s house
i. HSBC Bank Malaysia Bhd v Tirathrai Sdn Bhd; the HC held that the Respondents were
guilty of contempt of court as their conduct in getting caveats, injunctions and
restraining orders to stop the Bank from selling the property by public auction was
intentional to obstruct or frustrate the administration of justice.
j. Agi ak Buingkong & Ors v Ladang Sawit Bintulu Sdn Bhd; the HC held a breach of duty
by the defendant’s counsel is not disclosing the aerial photographs as required under
Order 24 of the Rules of High Court 1980 (now is Rules of Court 2012) in a land dispute
amounted to contempt.

Power of court to punish for contempt

1. Article 126 Federal Constitution and Section 13 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 empower
the Federal Court (FC), Court of Appeal (COA) and High Court (HC).
2. Section 99A 3rd Schedule of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 empowers the Sessions Court and
Magistrates Court.

Liability in contempt

1. Contempt can be either of a criminal nature, where the solicitor is guilty of conduct, either in or
out of court, which amounts to a contemptuous interference with the administration of justice,
or purely procedural, such as a failure to comply with an undertaking given by the solicitor in his
capacity of officer of the court or to comply with an order made against him in such capacity. An
attempt to prevent the course of justice is also an indictable offence.

Types of contempt

1. Civil Contempt: breach of (i) order of court; or (ii) undertaking to court

2. Criminal Contempt:
a. Contempt in the face of court (conduct during trial)
b. Scandalizing the court or judge (making remarks after unfavourable judgment)
c. Sub-judice comments (making public comments before or during the trial)
 A. Contempt in the face of court (conduct during trial)
What is contempt in the face of court? In Re Kumaraendran, An Advocate and Solicitor, the
court said that contempt in the face of court is, distinguished from contempt not in its face on
the footing that all the circumstances are in the personal knowledge of the court. The effect of
the contempt in the face of court as illustrated in Parashuram v King Emperor where they must
be such as would interfere or tend to interfere with the course of justice. There are two types of
contempt if the fact of court namely (i) misbehavior or improper conduct in court; and (ii)
obstructing proper conduct of litigation.

Misbehavior or improper conduct in court

Types of Misbehavior Challenging the authority Re Kumaraendran; the AS shouted at the witness
of the court and remarked ‘if you say this outside court, I’ll take
you on certainly’. It was contempt but failed it on
procedure

Argument with the Karam Singh; nsulting behavior of AS as he argued

magistrate or judge with the magistrate and counsel. Held, it was
contempt but it failed on procedure

Zainur Zakaria; AS argued with the judge

(Augustine Paul J) on the adminissibility of the
affidavit of Manjeet Signh pertaining to the case of
Nallakaruppan. Held, it was contempt but it failed
on procedure

Allegation of biasness Seeralan; AS alleged the magistrate was bias and

refused to leave the court when ordered to do so
and further interrupted proceedings. Held it was
contempt

Re Tai Choi Yu; AS alleged that the presiding judge

was biased as he had ruled unfavourably on the
counsel’s credibility. Held, the allegation was held
to be contempt it is not hypothetical nor conjecture
but a natural consequence of any allegaltion of bias
or impartiality against a judge that public
confidence in the administration of justice would be
impaired.

Using the court as a Re TT Rajah; the misconduct of the AS was held to

political forum be contempt

Advising client to initiate Anthony Ratos v City Specialist Centre (Peguam

contempt proceedings Negara Intervener)
against the judge
 Obstructing proper conduct of litigation
Types of obstruction Concealment of documents Cheah Cheng Hoe; the counsel
deceived the court by
This is also in breach of Rule 17, suppressing any fact or giving
18, 20, 21 and 26 of the Legal false evidence
Profession (Practice and
Etiquette) Rule 1978
(hereinafter LPPER)

Abusing the process of discovery See Rule 60a and 35 of the

LPPER 1978

Denying others of the right of Breaches Rule 35 of LPPER 1978

access to court
Malaysian bar v Tan Sri Abdul
Hamid Omar; the Malaysian Bar
applied for leave for an order to
commit Tan Sri Abdul Hamid
Omar for contempt for
preventing the sitting of the
Supreme Court. Held, there was
no contempt

Interfering with the conduct of Breaches Rule 35 of LPPER 1978

the litigation
Koperasi Serbaguna Taiping
Barat Ltd v Lim Joo Thong; AS
sent 3 letters to the Chief
Registrar of the HC. Held, it was
contempt.
 Contempt of Courts

Meaning: Manjeet Power: Art 126 FC

Singh and Arthur & S 13 CJA & S99A
Lee 3rd Schedule of
SCA

Types of Contemps:

Contempt in the Scandalising the Sub-judicie

face of courts courts or judges comments

Misbehaviour or Obstructing proper Scandalising the

Scandalising the
improper conduct conduct of judge in their
Courts
in court litigation judicial capacity