CAIRNHILL LAW LLC v ROYAL'S ENGINEERING & TRADING (S) PTE. LTD.

Facts

Cairnhill Law LLC, a law firm, had acted for Royal's Engineering & Trading (S) Pte Ltd and billed it for fees that the company disputed. The firm sued and obtained a default judgment on 24 July 2025. The same day the company's solicitors asked the firm to consent to setting aside the judgment, offering costs, but the firm declined. On 1 August 2025 the firm applied for an examination of enforcement respondent (EER) against the company's director, Mr Manickam Nagarajan (Naga), and on 4 August 2025 the company applied to set aside the default judgment.

Naga attended the first EER on 10 October 2025 and said he had not received the EER questionnaire. The deputy registrar adjourned the hearing to 29 October 2025 and directed him to return the answers by 24 Oct 2025. Before the adjourned hearing, solicitors were appointed for Naga and on 28 October 2025 filed an application to stay execution pending the setting-aside application. On 29 October 2025 Naga was at a medical appointment at Tan Tock Seng Hospital; his solicitor attended and sought an adjournment, but the firm asked for the EER to be suspended so it could bring committal proceedings. In District Court Summons No 2329 of 2025 it sought a committal order against Naga for his absence and failure to answer the questionnaire.

Issues

1. Whether Naga had taken reasonable steps in the EER process so that his non-compliance was excused under s 21 of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016.
2. Whether Naga's conduct was intentional or contumelious so as to amount to contempt of court.

Holding

District Judge Chiah Kok Khun found Naga not guilty of contempt of court and dismissed the claimant's committal application.

Reasoning

Under s 4(1) of the AJPA contempt requires intentional disobedience of a court order, proved beyond reasonable doubt, and s 21 excuses a person whose failure is wholly or substantially due to an honest and reasonable failure to understand the obligation. Naga was not an unresponsive debtor: he came to the first EER, appointed solicitors who attended the adjourned hearing, and a hospital certificate confirmed his medical appointment at that time. The setting-aside and stay applications were pending, and his solicitor sought an adjournment. The court found at least a reasonable doubt that he honestly believed the EER would be adjourned and that his solicitors could appear for him. He did not deliberately choose to disobey and there was no sign of evasion, so the mens rea was not proved.

The judge added that the firm could have sought a short adjournment for the questionnaire to be answered instead of suspending the EER. Applying the factors noted in Tay Kar Oon v Tahir [2017] 2 SLR 342, the company had fully paid the judgment on 29 January 2026, so the firm suffered no prejudice, Naga's culpability was low and he had cooperated; in any event he had purged any contempt. Committal is a remedy of last resort, and for money judgments creditors should use the other enforcement tools rather than use committal to pressure debtors.

From the judgment