XXXX v XXXX

Case Significance

Instructive on the strict service and penal-notice requirements for leave to commence committal proceedings under Order 52 of the Rules of Court 2012, and on the need to tie a contempt allegation to a subsisting operative term of a court order.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns an application for leave to commence committal proceedings for contempt under Order 52 of the Rules of Court 2012, arising from a long-running dispute between two brothers over the control of a Hindu temple standing on land they jointly own. The plaintiff, acting as secretary of one temple society, sought leave to bring committal proceedings against the defendant, the former president of that society who operated a rival society, alleging wilful disobedience of court orders. The relevant orders were a High Court order of February 2019, which had granted injunctive relief recognising the plaintiff society's committee and restraining the defendant, and a Court of Appeal order of October 2020, which had varied the High Court order by removing references to the temple in one paragraph and deleting two others. In January 2025 the plaintiff obtained an amended version of the 2019 High Court order with a penal notice endorsed on it and served that amended order, alleging that the defendant had continued to deny access to the temple, taken exclusive control, issued receipts under the rival society, changed the temple signboard and dismantled statues. The court, per Dato' Anita binti Harun JC, refused leave. It held that committal requires strict procedural compliance, and that here the operative Court of Appeal order alleged to have been breached had not been personally served, only a letter having been handed to a priest at the temple, which was neither personal service nor authorised substituted service, and no penal notice had been endorsed on that appellate order; the penal notice had instead been attached only to an obsolete version of the High Court order. Moreover, the acts complained of concerned temple management, which the Court of Appeal had removed from the order, so that no surviving operative term supported a contempt allegation. These were not minor defects but went to the foundation of committal jurisdiction, and the plaintiff had failed to cross the mandatory threshold for leave. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs. The judgment is instructive on the strict service and penal-notice requirements for committal and on the need to tie contempt to a subsisting operative order.