Hour Glass co-founder gets suspended jail term for contempt
The jail term for 72-year-old Jannie Chan — who co-founded luxury watch retailer The Hour Glass with her ex-husband Henry Tay Yun Chwan, 73 — was suspended for a year. Photo: Jannie Chan's Facebook page
SINGAPORE — A prominent businesswoman was yesterday given a suspended two-week prison term by the High Court after she failed to comply with court orders not to send defamatory emails to her ex-husband.
The jail term for 72-year-old Jannie Chan — who co-founded luxury watch retailer The Hour Glass with her ex-husband Henry Tay Yun Chwan, 73 — was suspended for a year.
This is dependant on the conditions that she stops sending such emails to Dr Tay, undergoes monthly psychiatric treatment and sends the prosecution a time chit or memo from the clinic within three days of each session. If she fails to comply with these conditions, Dr Tay could apply to lift the suspension — resulting in Chan having to serve jail time.
This was the third time that Dr Tay, who is currently executive chairman of The Hour Glass, has filed contempt of court proceedings against his former wife.
Dr Tay dropped the case on the first occasion, but Chan was fined S$30,000 following the second lawsuit.
The couple divorced in 2010 and have three adult children.
The case stretches back to 2014, when Dr Tay first sued Chan for allegedly sending him 1,260 defamatory emails between November 2013 and September 2014.
Court orders were issued, which restrained Chan from defaming Dr Tay and harassing him by sending him e-mails without his consent.
But Chan flouted these orders and continued emailing him.
The latest lawsuit related to 446 emails — of which some were defamatory in nature — that Chan sent to Dr Tay between March 17 last year and February 2 this year. She also breached court orders when she sent another 42 emails to Dr Tay from April 13 to July 12 this year.
In her defence, Chan argued that the scope for the court orders was “not clear or unambiguous”. The court orders required the contents of the emails sent to her ex-husband to have a “harassment effect”, she claimed.
Chan also argued that the emails related to family and/or company issues and were not defamatory.
Judicial Commissioner Hoo Sheau Peng dismissed Chan’s arguments, saying that the court orders were clear and unambiguous.
Addressing Chan’s claim about the contents of her emails, JC Hoo pointed out that “it is clear law that the motive or intention of the party who has acted in breach of an order is strictly irrelevant to the issue of liability, though these may be relevant in sentencing”.
The judge said in her grounds of decision that she was “prepared to give another opportunity” to Chan to comply with the court orders, with the help or support of mental health professionals. “In this regard, I note the psychiatric evidence that (Chan) would benefit from the help/support of mental health professionals to cope with her ongoing issues,” the judge said.
“The psychiatric evidence, however, does not suggest that (Chan) is not aware and should not be held accountable for her actions.”
