Week 13 – Tutorial 12

Contempt of Court
Question 3
(i) Explain the contempt committed in the face of court based on Order 52 Rule 2A of
the Rules of Court 2012; and

Insulting the court

Disrupting court proceedings
 Koperasi Serbaguna
 PP v Lee Ah Keh & Ors Taiping Barat Bhd v Lim
Joo Thong

Contempt in the
face of the court

Deceiving the court

 Tara Rajaratnam v
Datuk Jaginder Singh &
Ors

Contempt committed in the face of the Court

O.52 R2A
 If a contempt is committed in the face of the
Court, it shall not be necessary to serve a
formal notice to show cause, but the Court
- Zainur Bin Zakaria v shall ensure that the person alleged to be in
PP
contempt understands the nature of the
- Hoslan Bin Hussin v offence alleged against him and has the
Majlis Agama Islam opportunity to be heard in his own defence,
Wilayah Persekutuan and the Court shall make a proper record of
the proceedings.

UPP4712 PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE I

JESSLYN WEE
(ii) Explain the process of application after leave to apply for an order of committal is
granted, pursuant to Order 52 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012.
1) Citing a party for contempt must be done promptly
 O. 52, r. 4(2): Unless within fourteen days after such leave was granted the notice of
application is filed, the leave shall lapse.
 Malaysian Bar v Tan Sri Abdul Hamid bin Omar

2) Application for order to be made by NOA

 O. 52, r. 4(1): When leave has been granted under rule 3 to apply for an order of
committal, the application for the order must be made by notice of application to the
Court, and, unless the Court granting leave has otherwise directed, there must be at least
eight clear days between the service of the notice of application and the day named
therein for the hearing.

3) Notice must be personally served

 O. 52, r. 4(3): Subject to paragraph (4), the notice, accompanied by a copy of the
statement and affidavit in support of the application for leave under rule 3 and the order
granting such leave, must be served personally on the person sought to be committed.
 Wong Chin Yiam v Bar Malaysia

4) O. 52, r. 4(4): Without prejudice to the powers of the Court or Judge under Order 62, rule
5, the Court or Judge may dispense with service of the notice under this rule if it or he thinks
it just to do so.
 Chandra Sri Ram v Murray Hiebert
Question 4
Enid Chilled Water Sdn Bhd has failed, refused and/or neglected to adhere to the
Injunction Order granted by the Court, to among others, stop the construction of an extra
chilled water on the Opera Shopping Mall’s rooftop until March 2023. Jeks Utilities Sdn
Bhd was very unhappy about this and proceeded to file for committal application against
Enid Chilled Water Sdn Bhd before the Court last two (2) weeks. It was granted by the
Court instantly.
In light of the above, please draft an order of committal.

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI KUALA LUMPUR

DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR
SAMAN PEMULA NO.: XXXX-XXXX

JEKS UTILITIES SDN BHD …PLAINTIF

(NO. SYARIKAT: 12345-X)

DAN

ENID CHILLED WATER SDN BHD …DEFENDAN

(NO. SYARIKAT: 67890-Y)

DI HADAPAN TIMBALAN PENDAFTAR

TUAN MOHAMAD NOOR AZRI
PADA 18 APRIL 2023 DALAM KAMAR

PERINTAH PENGKOMITAN (Perintah 52, Kaedah 2)

ATAS PERMOHONAN yang dibuat pada hari ini dalam Mahkamah ini oleh peguam kepada
Plaintif, Encik Chan Ding Chong dan Encik Wee Zhen Wang, dan SETELAH MEMBACA
Affidavit Sokongan yang diikrarnya pada 17 Mac 2023 oleh Plaintif, JEKS UTILITIES SDN
BHD, dan difailkan pada 18 Mac 2023 yang penyampaiannya kepada Defendan, ENID
CHILLED WATERSDN BHD, akan sesalinan Perintah Mahkamah bertarikh 28 Januari 2023
dan akan notis permohonan ini
Dan didapati dengan memuaskan hati Mahkamah ini bahawa Defendan, ENID CHILLED
WATER SDN BHD,telah melakukan kesalahan penghinaan terhadap Mahkamah kerana
Defendan telah gagal,enggan dan/atau mengabaikan Perintah Injunksi yang diberikan oleh
Mahkamah supaya menghentikan pembinaan bekalan air sejuk tambahan di atas bumbung
Opera Shopping Mallsehingga Mac 2023.

Diperintahkan bahawa kerana penghinaan yang tersebut Defendan hendaklah dikomitkan ke

penjarauntuk dipenjarakan di situ (sehingga perintah selanjutnya).

(Diperintahkan selanjutnya bahawa perintah ini tidaklah boleh dilaksanakan jika Defendan
dengan segaranya mematuhi terma-terma iaitu:
1. Menghentikan pembinaan bekalan air sejuk tersebut setelah menerima perintah ini;
2. Membayar kos sebanyak RM5,000.00 kepada Plaintif.)

Bertarikh 18 April 2023.

(Seal)

…………….……………..
Pendaftar