1. ) Poh Chee Leng 2. ) Tan Siew Huey v 1. ) Cheah Siew Huen 2. ) Kong Ting Fong 3. ) Lim Meng Soon 4. ) Lam Kwok Seong 5. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN SELANGOR 6. ) Pentadbir Tanah Pejabat Tanah dan Daerah Sepang
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (17)
Case Significance
Illustrates the threshold for leave to commence committal proceedings for contempt: an applicant must show a prima facie case that the respondent's conduct interfered with the administration of justice, and merely obtaining adjournments — even on medical certificates whose authenticity is questioned — will not, without a sufficient evidential foundation, cross that threshold.
This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns an application for leave to commit a party for contempt on the ground of interference with the administration of justice. In the course of a civil suit there had been several adjournments obtained at the behest of the plaintiff, causing inconvenience to the other parties, and it was later brought to the court's attention — by newly appointed counsel — that some of the medical certificates tendered in support of those adjournments were not genuine. On that footing an application was made for leave to commit the plaintiff for contempt, the alleged contempt being the use of false documents to obtain adjournments and thereby to interfere with the administration of justice. Committal for contempt is a two-stage process: leave must first be obtained by demonstrating a prima facie case, and only then does the substantive committal application proceed. The court emphasised that the grant of an adjournment lies within the sole and absolute discretion of the court, so that a party's requests for adjournments, even if granted on questionable material, do not without more amount to an interference with the administration of justice for which contempt proceedings lie. On the material before it, the court held that a prima facie case for leave had not been demonstrated on the balance of probabilities, and it dismissed the application, making no order as to costs. Delivered by Alice Loke Yee Ching J, the judgment is a useful illustration of the threshold for leave to commence committal proceedings for contempt: an applicant must show a prima facie case that the respondent's conduct interfered with the administration of justice, and the mere fact that adjournments were obtained — even on medical certificates whose authenticity is questioned — will not, without a sufficient evidential foundation, cross that threshold.
What was the alleged contempt?
It was alleged that the plaintiff had interfered with the administration of justice by obtaining several adjournments supported by medical certificates, some of which newly appointed counsel indicated were not genuine, and leave was sought to commit the plaintiff for contempt.
Why was leave to commit refused?
The court held that granting adjournments is within its sole and absolute discretion, so obtaining them did not without more interfere with the administration of justice, and that a prima facie case for leave had not been demonstrated on the balance of probabilities. It dismissed the application with no order as to costs.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (12)
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (ba-22ncvc-7-01-2020)