​Golden Star & Ors v Ling Peek Hoe & Ors [2021] 2 MLJ 259

​Golden Star & Ors v Ling Peek Hoe & Ors [2021] 2 MLJ 259

Federal Court Putrajaya

Failure to Comply with Court Order

1. This case arose from a contractual dispute over a land transaction between the Respondents as vendors, and the Appellants as purchasers. Pursuant to a Sale and Purchase Agreement, the Respondents had agreed to transfer certain immovable property to the Appellants. However, disputes later emerged when the Appellants failed to perform their contractual obligations, particularly with regard to returning the land title and removing encumbrances over the said property.
2. In response, the Respondents commenced proceedings in the High Court seeking specific performance, requesting that the Appellants be ordered to surrender the original title and to discharge all charges or caveats registered on the property. The High Court found in favour of the Respondents and granted a mandatory injunction, compelling the Appellants to comply within a prescribed period of 60 days.
3. The Appellants appealed the decision, and the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s ruling. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the respondents brought the matter before the Federal Court, which on 20 June 2017 reinstated the High Court’s judgment, affirming the mandatory nature of the injunction. The Federal Court’s final order explicitly required the Appellants to return the land title and remove all encumbrances within 60 days of the date of the order.
4. However, instead of complying with the Federal Court’s order, the Appellants, advised by their solicitor HK, embarked on further litigation by filing multiple review applications and an application for stay, none of which were accompanied by a formal application to stay the enforcement of the Federal Court’s ruling. As a result, the Federal Court’s order remained valid and binding throughout the period in question.
5. Following the Appellants’ failure to comply within the 60-day timeframe, the Respondents filed an application for committal proceedings, alleging that both the Appellants and their solicitor had wilfully disobeyed a binding order of the highest court. The Respondents argued that this conduct constituted a clear and deliberate contempt of court.

1. Whether the conduct of the Appellants and their counsel was contumacious and disrespectful.
2. Whether charge of contempt was proven against the contemnors beyond reasonable doubt.

1. The Federal Court emphasized the critical duty of parties and legal counsel to comply with court orders, particularly final orders issued by the highest court. The central issue involved the Respondents’ refusal to comply with a mandatory injunction granted by the High Court and affirmed by the Federal Court, which required the surrender of land titles within 60 days. The deadline expired without compliance.
2. After this non-compliance, the Respondents, through their new counsel HK, filed multiple review applications and an application to stay the committal proceedings, even though no formal stay of the Federal Court order had been applied for. The Court found that the Respondents not only failed to obey the judgment but also affirmed affidavits denying the validity of the order and used those to oppose the contempt proceedings.
3. HK, in his defence, argued that he was acting solely under instructions and was protected by subsection 35(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1976. However, the Court rejected this defence, stating that legal privilege and the right to appear in court do not shield lawyers from contempt, especially when their actions undermine the authority of the court. The Court held that HK’s failure to advise compliance and his filing of applications without securing a stay order reflected a serious breach of professional duty.
4. The judgment highlighted settled principles that court orders must be obeyed until set aside or varied by proper judicial process. The mere filing of a review or appeal does not excuse disobedience. The Court cited the case of Wee Choo Keong v MBf Holdings Bhd [1993] 2 MLJ 217 and TO Thomas v Asia Fishing Industry Pte Ltd [1977] 1 MLJ 151, to affirm that even an order wrongly issued or obtained irregularly must be observed until lawfully discharged.
5. Furthermore, the Federal Court rejected arguments that the contempt proceedings were motivated by retaliation or that the delay in filing indicated uncertainty. It held that there had been a clear and deliberate refusal to comply with the binding order, and that continued litigation by way of reviews and stays after all legal avenues were exhausted constituted contumacious behaviour.

2. Whether charge of contempt was proven against the contemnors beyond reasonable doubt.

1. The Federal Court held that HK, an experienced lawyer with over two decades of litigation practice, was guilty of contempt of Court for knowingly disregarding a mandatory order issued by the Federal Court. The order, dated 20 June 2017, had directed the Appellants to return property titles and discharge related charges within 60 days. When HK was appointed, the compliance period had already lapsed, and he was fully aware of the binding nature of the Court’s directive.
2. Despite this, HK proceeded to file a second and third review application, as well as an application to stay committal proceedings in the High Court, without first seeking a stay of the Federal Court’s original order. While he argued that these actions were legally permissible, the Court stressed that context matters, particularly where a final court order has not been complied with.
3. The Court emphasized that lawyers, as officers of the court, are expected to uphold the administration of justice and respect court orders. Citing MBf Holdings Bhd & Anor v Houng Hai Kong & Ors [1995] 1 MLJ 135, the Court reaffirmed that an advocate’s paramount duty is to the court, including preserving its dignity and ensuring compliance with its orders. It was further clarified that subsection 35(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 only permits legal representation but it does not shield lawyers from contempt liability when they act in a way that undermines court authority.
4. HK’s affidavits did not show that he had advised his clients to comply with the order or explained why they failed to do so. This absence of explanation supported the Court’s conclusion that both HK and the Appellants had intentionally disobeyed a binding judgment, and their actions amounted to willful contempt.
5. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the respondents and their counsel had shown blatant disregard for the authority of the Federal Court, and their actions amounted to contempt proven beyond reasonable doubt.

1. The Federal Court  dismissed the Appellants application and found that both the Appellants and their lawyer, HK, were guilty of contempt of court for intentionally refusing to obey the Court’s earlier order. Their actions were seen as disrespectful and showed clear defiance of the Court’s authority.

1. Court orders are binding and must be complied with, regardless of personal views or intentions to challenge them.
2. The right to file a review does not excuse non-compliance with existing judgments.