CIMB BANK BERHAD v KOK KON SANG

Case Significance

Illustrates the court's willingness to impose imprisonment for contempt where a litigant persistently and unrepentantly breaches a Vexatious Litigant Order: a custodial sentence, a monetary order and a warrant of committal followed a sustained, calculated assault on the administration of justice.

This decision of the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur concerns an application to commit a litigant to prison for contempt of court under Order 52 of the Rules of Court 2012. The applicant, a bank, had earlier obtained a Vexatious Litigant Order against the respondent, restraining him from making further filings without the leave of the court; the respondent nonetheless persisted in filing a series of documents in wilful breach of that order. The applicant applied to commit him for contempt, and, though the respondent did not attend the hearing even after the matter was stood down to await him, the court heard the applicant's submissions in support of committal.

The court found the respondent's conduct to be a sustained and deliberate assault on the administration of justice: his repeated filings demonstrated a complete disregard for the court's authority and an attempt to render the Vexatious Litigant Order meaningless. In deciding on sanction it weighed the need to uphold the authority and dignity of the court, the need for both specific and general deterrence, the aggravating factors — in particular the recidivist, systematic and calculated nature of the breaches over a six-month period — and the absence of any mitigating factor or genuine remorse. Guided by authority establishing that custodial sentences are appropriate for serious, persistent breaches of court orders where there is no remorse, the court held that a custodial sentence was both necessary and appropriate to reflect the gravity of the contempt and to deter similar conduct. It ordered that the respondent be committed to prison for 24 days for wilfully and persistently breaching the order, that he pay the applicant RM50,000 within seven days, and that he pay costs of the committal application, and it issued a warrant of committal for his arrest and detention. The judgment illustrates the court's willingness to impose imprisonment for persistent, unrepentant breach of a Vexatious Litigant Order.