Introduction

Orders of Court are meant to be strictly complied with. A failure to comply with an order of court can amount to contempt of court and result in stiff penalties, including imprisonment sentences. 

A stern reminder of this was given in a recent judgement by the High Court of Singapore in the case of Zhongshan Shengwang Electrical Appliance Co Ltd and another v Phua Kian Chey Colin and another [2026] SGHC 37. 

Background

Mr. Phua was the sole director and shareholder of a company called Triple D. This company had ordered a large number of ceiling fans and lighting fixtures from Zhongshan Shengwang (“Zhongshan”) but failed to pay the outstanding balance due. 

Zhongshan sued Triple D for the unpaid balance and obtained judgment. Triple D failed to satisfy the judgment and Zhongshan obtained Disclosure Orders against Triple D requiring it to:

• Reveal all of its assets and bank accounts.
• Provide copies of its financial documents. 
• Explain its inability to satisfy the judgment. 

Further, to prevent Triple D from hiding its assets, Zhongshan obtained a Mareva Injunction (a “freezing order”) to prevent Triple D from moving money/assets out of its bank accounts or the country.

However, Triple D moved money in breach of the injunction and provided incomplete or dishonest asset disclosures. Zhongshan brought contempt of court proceedings against Triple D and Mr. Phua.

Findings of the High Court: Personal & Corporate Liability 

The High Court found that both Triple D and Mr. Phua were liable for contempt as they were fully aware of the court orders. While the Disclosure Orders and Mareva Injunction were against Triple D, as the sole director and shareholder of the company, Mr. Phua was responsible for ensuring its compliance with the orders of the Court. 

Although, by the time of the sentencing, the underlying debt to Zhongshan had been paid (which meant the contempt had been “substantially purged”), the Court nonetheless held both parties separately accountable: 

• For Triple D: The Court found the Company liable for contempt. The Company was hit with a fine of $60,000. A corporate fine was imposed to serve the public interest and ensure the company did not profit from its delay. The Court emphasized that the fine stood as a penalty for the Company’s failure to respect the judicial process.
• For Mr. Phua: The Court looked at Mr. Phua’s personal conduct and found it to be “contumacious” (stubbornly disobedient). 
• His actions, such as dishonestly omitting assets in his affidavits, using a “lost documents” excuse that was used in a previous case and making false representations under oath, showed a “deliberate intention” to obstruct the law and were “wholly targeted at the frustration” of the judgment.
• Because these breaches were planned and took place over a long period, the Court determined that a custodial sentence was necessary, not to force him to pay, but to punish the calculated defiance he showed toward the judicial process, and sentenced him to an aggregate imprisonment term of four months.

Takeaways

While the case of Zhongshan Shengwang contained especially aggravating circumstances, the judgment serves as a powerful reminder that parties who fail to comply fully with an order of court do so at their own risk, including their personal liberty.

The following are particularly of note:

1. Compliance is not an option and must be total, not partial or selective. 
2. The corporate veil does not protect company directors from jail for non-compliance of orders made against the company. 
3. Paying the debt/purging the contempt does not wipe the slate clean. 
4. Past conduct can be relevant e.g. history across other lawsuits. 

If compliance post-order becomes impossible or problematic due to new or unexpected circumstances, the party against who the order was made should immediately and proactively take steps raise the problem with the Court and show they have done everything possible to comply rather than just allow a default to occur.

Special thanks to our intern, Rakshana Subramanian, for her contribution to this article.

	K. Murali Pany Senior Partner JTJB Singapore Office E : murali@jtjb.com T : 6224 3645

Don’t miss out on the latest legal updates and subscribe to our mailing list for timely insights – subscribe here