1. ) PUGANESVARAN A/L LACHEMANAN 2. ) NAGARAJAN A/L S. LACHEMANAN v LACHEMANAN A/L SINNASAMY

Case Significance

Confirms that Order 45 rule 6 does not empower a court to fix a fresh compliance date after a party has been fined for breaching a mandatory injunction, but that the court's inherent power allows it to set a new time for performance, and that impecuniosity is no excuse for disobeying an order that remains in force.

This Court of Appeal decision concerns the powers of the court where a party has failed to comply with a mandatory injunction. In the High Court the respondent, as plaintiff, had obtained a mandatory injunction requiring the appellants, as defendants, to deposit a sum of money by a certain time. When the appellants failed to comply, they were the subject of committal proceedings and were fined. The plaintiff then applied for a consequential order setting a new time for compliance. The questions for the Court of Appeal were whether, once a respondent has already been found guilty and fined for non-compliance, the plaintiff may apply under Order 45 rule 6 of the Rules of Court 2012 to set a new time for compliance, whether the court has power under that provision to fix an additional date for performance, and, if not, whether the court may nonetheless set a new time for compliance under its inherent power. The Court answered the first two questions in the negative — Order 45 rule 6 did not empower the court to fix a fresh time for compliance in those circumstances — but answered the third in the affirmative, holding that the court retains an inherent power to set a new time for performance so as to secure obedience to its order. The appellants argued that greater weight should have been given to their impecuniosity, since they lacked the funds to comply and the consequential order exposed them to a continuing breach and further committal. The Court held that an order of the court must be obeyed unless and until it is set aside, and that a party genuinely unable to comply should apply to vary the injunction as to the amount and manner of the deposit rather than simply disobey it. On that footing the Court upheld the consequential order and dismissed the appeal.