Judgment Header
Maruti Shipping Pte Ltd v Tay Sien Djim and others [2014] SGHC 227
Court DecisionSGHC
[2014] SGHC 227
[2014] SGHC 227
General Division of the High Court of Singapore7 Nov 2014Suit No 631 of 2010 (Summons No 4809 of 2010)
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 12 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
How this case connects
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Cited by
12Later cases and laws citing this decision
“The second authority that was cited to us was the decision of the High Court in Maruti Shipping Pte Ltd v Tay Sien Djim and others [2014] SGHC 227 (“Maruti Shipping”). In that case, the first defendant was found guilty of contempt of court for the following breaches: (a) preventing the execution of an Anton Piller orde”
“y way of actively dissipating assets, or omissions with intent to conceal assets or the dissipation of such were punished more harshly. The cases of Maruti Shipping Pte Ltd v Tay Sien Djim and others [2014] SGHC 227 (“Maruti Shipping”), OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP and others v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) and”
“ths’ imprisonment for breaching the disclosure orders and failing to attend court for cross-examination on their affidavits of assets. Similarly, in Maruti Shipping Pte Ltd v Tay Sien Djim and others [2014] SGHC 227 (“Maruti Shipping”), the court took into account the contemnor’s past conduct, noting that he was a “rep”
“for examination; (iv) continued breaches of the Mareva injunction. Another case where a substantial term of six months’ imprisonment was imposed is Maruti Shipping Pte Ltd v Tay Sien Djim and others [2014] SGHC 227, in respect of breaches of a Mareva injunction and an Anton Piller order. Whilst these cases were not cit”
“question of liability for contempt: Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd v Karaha Bodas Co LLC and others [2007] 2 SLR(R) 518 (“Pertamina Energy”) at [51]; Maruti Shipping Pte Ltd v Tay Sien Djim and others [2014] SGHC 227 (“Maruti Shipping”) at [17]–[18]; Carey v Laiken (2015) SCC 17 at [29] and [47].”
Show 7 moreShow fewer
“ned the cases of OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP and others v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) and others [2005] 3 SLR(R) 60 (“OCM Opportunities”), Maruti Shipping Pte Ltd v Tay Sien Djim and others [2014] SGHC 227 (“Maruti Shipping”) and Toyota Tsusho (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Foo Tseh Wan and others [2017] 4 SLR 1215 (“T”
“In submissions, Mr Yap cited the cases referred to at [62] [66] and [67] above as well as Maruti Shipping Pte Ltd v Tay Sien Djim and others [2014] SGHC 227, Precious Wishes Limited v Sinoble Metalloy International (Pte) Ltd [2000] SGHC 5, Technigroup Far East Pte Ltd and another v v Jaswinderpal Singh s/o Bachint Sing”
“Maruti Shipping Pte Ltd v Tay Sien Djim and others [2014] SGHC 227 (“Maruti Shipping”) was another case involving a failure to effect personal service altogether (see [112]). Similar to OCM Opportunities, the court dispensed with the requirement of service as the co”
“Tan Beow Hiong was cited in Maruti Shipping Pte Ltd v Tay Sien Djim and others [2014] SGHC 227 (“Maruti Shipping”) (at [134]), for the proposition that “[d]espite its quasi-criminal nature, a civil contempt does not amount to a criminal offence”. Thus, the court in Maruti Shipping doubted whet”
“owever, the appropriate fine also cannot be the symbolic value of $10,000 that was imposed on the corporate respondent in the High Court decision of Maruti Shipping Pte Ltd v Tay Sien Djim and others [2014] SGHC 227 (“Maruti”). In that case, the court had imposed a fine of $10,000 on the corporate respondent for failin”
“(c) Maruti Shipping Pte Ltd v Tay Sien Djim [2014] SGHC 227 (“Maruti Shipping”), in which six months’ imprisonment was imposed for numerous breaches, “the most audacious” of which was the withdrawal of $380,000 in breach of a Mareva injunction: Maruti Shippin”
“te) Ltd [2000] SGHC 5 but were slightly less aggravating than those in OCM Opportunities Fund II LP v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kong) [2005] 3 SLR(R) 60 and Maruti Shipping Pte Ltd v Tay Sien Djim [2014] SGHC 227. As such, five months’ imprisonment would be appropriate: 16 July Decision at [13].”
Authorities cited
0Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Case Metadata
Case No: Suit No 631 of 2010 (Summons No 4809 of 2010)
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2014-11-07
Something wrong on this page?
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.