PUTRAJAYA (April 3): The Court of Appeal (COA) on Friday allowed Datuk Cheryl Tan Bee Geok’s motion to adduce further evidence in relation to the contempt appeal filed by her husband, glove entrepreneur Datuk Seri Stanley Thai of Supermax Corp Bhd, as well as her cross-appeal concerning a RM60,000 fine imposed against Thai for contempt of court in their ongoing divorce proceedings.

A three-member bench led by COA judge Datuk Mohamed Zaini Mazlan allowed Tan’s motion to produce an affidavit of means and a correction affidavit for the appeal proper, which Tan claims was not made available to her at the time the High Court had found Thai to be in contempt of court. These affidavits are to be made available in the hearing of the appeal at the COA.

Zaini, who sat with Datuk Seri Mohd Firuz Jaffril and K Muniandy, ordered the additional evidence to be submitted within 14 days from Friday.

The appellate court however, did not allow Thai’s application to bar the media from reporting on the ongoing proceedings at the appellate court, as the bench ruled that there is no evidence of any real or substantial risk to the proceedings.

In the unanimous decision, Zaini said Thai’s application for anonymity and protective orders made under Section 15 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 does not confer unfettered discretion, as it must be exercised in accordance with established principles, and one such principle is that justice is administered transparently.

“Any departure from it must be justified by necessity. Thai relies on alleged prejudice arising from media reporting, reputational harm, and personal embarrassment. There is no evidence before this court of any real or substantial risk to the fairness of the proceedings.

“The characterisation of the proceedings as private and matrimonial is untenable. The contempt proceedings engage the authority of the court and are inherently public. The winding-up proceedings involve corporate and commercial interests, including those of a listed entity. These are matters of legitimate public interest,” Zaini added.

Furthermore, the judge said that this litigation has already been widely reported and the identities of the parties and the nature of the proceedings are in the public domain.

“The orders sought would therefore serve no practical purpose. In the circumstances, the applicant has failed to satisfy the threshold required to justify a departure from open justice. Section 15 CJA is not a charter for secrecy.

“In a country and world that is shrouded in secrecy, it is the courts that are the final bastion of justice. The court will always welcome the press,” Zaini added, ordering Thai to pay global costs of RM90,000 to Tan in respect of all motions heard before the appellate court on Friday.

Despite the appellate court dismissing Thai’s motion to bar the media from reporting on its proceedings, the gag order on the divorce proceedings at the High Court still stands, as Tan did not appeal the matter.

Tan was represented by Fredric Kong Yat Sen, Avinash Kamalanathan and Jessica Leong of Messrs Bin & Associates, while Chris Chin and Tan Han Rui of Messrs Shang & Co Advocates and Solicitors represented Thai.

The appellate court also allowed Tan’s motion for a stay of the enforcement of an injunction order, pending the appeal proper, which had initially barred her from pursuing her winding-up petition against Supermax Holdings Sdn Bhd until their divorce proceedings are resolved and which had injuncted (prohibited her from dealing with) all of her assets, bank accounts and EPF accounts.

Thai is appealing the High Court’s decision that had found him to be in contempt of court last year for disclosing his assets and bank accounts, while Tan has also filed a cross-appeal challenging his sentence.

At the same time, Tan is appealing the High Court’s decision in granting an injunction against her to prevent her from proceeding with the winding up of Supermax Holdings and preventing her from dealing with her assets. She is also appealing the court’s decision in dismissing her application for interim maintenance.

All the appeals are fixed for case management on April 8 for further directions to fix a hearing of the appeal proper.

The couple, who are the founders of Supermax, are embroiled in a contentious divorce, which includes disputes over wealth disclosure, division of matrimonial assets and possible implications for corporate governance at the glove maker.

The divorce proceedings are ongoing in the Family Court. In January 2024, the High Court had granted an ancillary relief injunction freezing 50% of Thai’s assets, including bank accounts, properties and shares (including those in Supermax).

They were married in August 1987. In 2022, Tan filed for judicial separation, while Thai filed for divorce in 2024.