[2005] SGHC 81

“26. In the Singapore case of OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP and others v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) and others [2005] SGHC 81 (High Court), the plaintiff’s commenced committal proceedings against the contemnors for failing to comply with their disclosure obligations under the Mareva injunction and the permanent”

“is, the Court is empowered to do under Order 45 Rule 7 (6) and (7) ROC 2012 : Davy International Ltd v Tazzyman [1997] 3 All ER 183 CA, OCM Opportunities Fund II v Burban Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) [2005] SGHC 81. 630 28 Decision on the act of contempt [58] In the circumstances of this case, the Court finds the Petit”

“2 (RoC). However, this Court finds that personal service may be dispensed with where the alleged contemnor has actual knowledge of the High Court Order. In OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP v Burhan Uray [2005] SGHC 81, the Singapore High Court held that the court has discretion to dispense with personal service under Orde”