GOH SWEE POR v TEE BEE CHIN

Case Significance

Illustrates the enforcement of a consent order on child access through committal proceedings: where a parent breaches the order regulating the other parent's holiday access to the child of the marriage, that breach may be held a contempt, and the court here allowed the appeal, found the respondent in contempt, and imposed a fine backed by committal in default.

This Court of Appeal decision, delivered in a judgment by Nantha Balan JCA (sitting with Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali and Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid JJCA), concerns committal for contempt of a consent order governing a parent's access to the child of the marriage. The appellant, the husband and petitioner in divorce proceedings, had applied in the High Court to commit the respondent, his former wife, to prison for contempt of a revised consent order dated 30 May 2019, which regulated his entitlement to access to the child of the marriage, including holiday access. The High Court dismissed his committal application, and he appealed. The central question was whether the respondent had breached the consent order in relation to the appellant's holiday access to the child, and if so, whether that breach amounted to a contempt warranting punishment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. It found that the respondent had breached the revised consent order in relation to the appellant's holiday access to the child in December 2022, and it set aside the High Court's order of 18 August 2023, holding the respondent to be in contempt of court in respect of the relevant paragraph of the consent order. On punishment, and taking into account all the facts and circumstances, the respondent's plea in mitigation and the submissions of counsel, the court imposed a fine rather than an immediate custodial sentence, directing the Court of Appeal Registry to monitor payment and providing for a warrant of committal to issue if the fine was not paid by the stipulated date. It ordered the respondent to pay costs, and directed that a sum already paid by the appellant to the respondent be refunded. The judgment illustrates the enforcement of a consent order on child access by committal proceedings, and the court's calibration of punishment for contempt through a fine backed by the threat of committal in default.