19 May 2025
The application for committal was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish deliberate disobedience to the consent judgment to the requisite standard, the applicant unlawfully delayed six years amounting to laches, and the consent judgment lacked the mandatory penal endorsement required to sustain committal proceedings.
20 Feb 2025
Plaintiff failed to discharge the heavy onus of proving contempt beyond reasonable doubt because pleadings and affidavit lacked particulars of deliberate non‑compliance, plaintiff did not show which specific terms of the 25.2.2015 order were breached or whether PKP powers had been exercised, and plaintiff failed to establish the required penal notice endorsement and procedural compliance; accordingly committal could not be ordered.
23 Dec 2021
Application for leave to commence committal proceedings was dismissed because applicant failed to serve the mandatory notice to show cause under O 52 r 2B and the injunction/order was not endorsed with a penal notice as required by O 45 r 7(4), rendering the application procedurally fatally defective; applicant may pursue contempt in the originating suit where appropriate.
23 Oct 2019
The Court set aside the ex‑parte leave because the Consent Order was contractual and effectively superseded by the subsequently executed SPA (which contained an entire agreement clause), the Consent Order bore no penal endorsement and was not coercive in wording, the Order 52 statement lacked necessary particularisation, Tan Sri Lim (a non‑party) had not been personally served, and there was material non‑disclosure in the ex‑parte leave application; consequently no prima facie case of contempt was established.