Hilton v Sun Travels: Contempt of Court for Failure to Comply with Arbitration Award

In a case before the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd (“Hilton”) sought orders of committal against Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd (“Sun Travels”) and its Chairman and Managing Director, Mr. Ahmed Siyam Mohamed (“Siyam”), for failing to comply with a Time-Fixing Order related to a Singapore-seated arbitration award. The court found Sun Travels and Siyam to be in contempt of court. Sun Travels was fined $100,000, and Siyam was initially sentenced to one year of imprisonment, which was later substituted with a $100,000 fine after the judgment debt was paid in full.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Sun Travels found in contempt of court and fined $100,000. Siyam, its director, initially sentenced to imprisonment, later substituted with a $100,000 fine upon full payment of the judgment debt.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court finds Sun Travels and its director in contempt for failing to comply with an order to pay an arbitration award to Hilton.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt LtdPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Sun Travels & Tours Pvt LtdDefendantCorporationContempt of CourtLost
Ahmed Siyam MohamedDefendantIndividualContempt of CourtLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chua Lee MingJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Jasmine Thng Khai FangRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Poon Kin Mun Kelvin SCRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
David Isidore Tan Huang LoongRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Toby Landau KCRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Mahesh Rai s/o Vedprakash RaiDrew & Napier LLC
Soon Ser Jia ClarissaDrew & Napier LLC
Loo Chuan Shen DonDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. A Singapore-seated arbitral tribunal issued awards in favor of Hilton against Sun Travels in 2015.
  2. In 2017, Hilton obtained leave to enforce the awards and entered judgment on the awards in Singapore.
  3. On 15 February 2021, a Singapore court ordered Sun Travels to pay the amounts due under the judgment within three months (Time-Fixing Order).
  4. Sun Travels did not comply with the Time-Fixing Order.
  5. Hilton filed HC/SUM 3513/2022 seeking orders of committal against Sun Travels and its Chairman and Managing Director, Mr Ahmed Siyam Mohamed.
  6. Sun Travels argued that its non-compliance with the Time-Fixing Order was due to its impecuniosity.
  7. The court found Sun Travels and Siyam to be in contempt of court.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd v Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd, Originating Summons No 762 of 2017(Summonses Nos 3513 of 2022 and 3256 of 2023), [2024] SGHC 119

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Arbitral tribunal issued partial and final awards in favor of Hilton.
Hilton obtained leave to enforce the awards and entered judgment on the awards in Singapore.
Hilton commenced HC/OS 845/2017 for injunctive and declaratory relief.
Singapore court ordered Sun Travels to pay amounts due under the judgment within three months (Time-Fixing Order).
Hilton filed HC/SUM 3513/2022 seeking orders of committal against Sun Travels and Siyam.
Sun Travels filed HC/SUM 2027/2023 applying for leave to adduce additional evidence.
Court heard application for extension of time.
Sun Travels paid US$4m.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Final extension date for payment.
Judgment date.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Contempt of Court
    • Outcome: The court found Sun Travels and Siyam guilty of contempt of court for intentionally disobeying the Time-Fixing Order.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Intentional disobedience of court order
      • Breach of Time-Fixing Order
      • Impecuniosity as a defense
  2. Abuse of Process
    • Outcome: The court held that Sun Travels' reliance on impecuniosity was not an abuse of process in the committal proceedings, but the position taken by Sun Travels before the AR was a relevant factor to be considered in deciding whether Sun Travels’ failure to comply with the Time-Fixing Order was in fact due to impecuniosity.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Inconsistent positions in litigation
      • Raising new arguments on appeal

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Orders of committal
  2. Fine
  3. Imprisonment

9. Cause of Actions

  • Contempt of Court

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Arbitration

11. Industries

  • Hospitality

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Mok Kah Hong v Zheng Zhuan YaoCourt of AppealYes[2016] 3 SLR 1SingaporeCited for the principle that non-compliance with a court order due to impecuniosity is not contempt of court and for providing a framework for courts to analyze the relevant facts in order to arrive at an appropriate sentence.
Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd v Sun Travels & Tours Pvt LtdHigh CourtYes[2018] SGHC 56SingaporeCited for the High Court's decision regarding injunctive and declaratory relief in response to Sun Travels' Civil Claim. The injunction was later set aside by the Court of Appeal.
Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd v Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt LtdCourt of AppealYes[2019] 1 SLR 732SingaporeCited for the Court of Appeal's decision to set aside the injunction but uphold the declarations made by the High Court.
Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd v Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt LtdHigh CourtYes[2020] 4 SLR 776SingaporeCited for the High Court's decision upholding the Assistant Registrar's ruling that Hilton was entitled to ask questions concerning the assets of the appellant located in the Maldives.
Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd v Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt LtdCourt of AppealYes[2020] 2 SLR 725SingaporeCited for the Court of Appeal's decision upholding the High Court's decision regarding the examination of judgment debtor.
Crystal Mews Ltd v Metterick and othersHigh Court of JusticeYes[2006] EWHC 3087 (Ch)England and WalesCited for providing a useful framework for courts to analyze the relevant facts in order to arrive at an appropriate sentence for contempt of court.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 52 r 5(1) of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016Singapore
International Arbitration Act 1994Singapore
Diplomatic and Consular Relations Act 2005Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Contempt of court
  • Time-Fixing Order
  • Impecuniosity
  • Arbitration award
  • Committal proceedings
  • Judgment Debt

15.2 Keywords

  • Contempt
  • Arbitration
  • Singapore
  • Hilton
  • Sun Travels
  • Siyam
  • Enforcement
  • Judgment
  • Impecuniosity

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Contempt of Court95
Time-Fixing Order80
Judgments and Orders70
Civil Procedure60
Arbitration50
International Commercial Arbitration40
Enforcement of Arbitral Awards30

16. Subjects

  • Contempt of Court
  • Arbitration
  • Civil Procedure