APK v APL

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tan Lee Meng J
• Judgment Date: 28 November 2011
• Neutral Citation: [2011] SGHC 255
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DT No 765 of 2008 (Summons No 3877 of 2011)
• Published date: 28 November 2011
• Year: 2011
• Hearing Date: 14 September 2011
• Plaintiff Counsel: Peter Ezekiel (Peter Ezekiel & Co)
• Defendant Counsel: Raymond Yeo (Raymond Yeo)
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Matrimonial Assets,Custody
• Citation: [2011] SGHC 255

Tan Lee Meng J:

The applicant, APL, the former husband of the respondent, APK, did not appeal against the ancillary orders made on 12 August 2009 with respect to the division of matrimonial assets and custody of children (“the ancillary orders”) within the time prescribed for filing an appeal. His application for an extension of time to file an appeal was dismissed by Kan Ting Chiu J (“Kan J”). He appealed against Kan J’s decision but he allowed his appeal to lapse. Subsequently, on 31 August 2011, he filed Summons No 3877 of 2011, the application presently being considered for a variation of the ancillary orders. I dismissed his application and now give the reasons for my decision.

Background

The applicant, a Malaysian aged 66, resides in Ipoh, Malaysia, while the respondent, aged 55, and their children live in Singapore. Two of the children are adults while the remaining two, who are living with the respondent, are now aged 19 and 13 respectively.

On 19 February 2008, the respondent commenced divorce proceedings on the ground of the applicant’s unreasonable behaviour. She complained about his financial irresponsibility and lack of interest in the welfare of their children. She also asserted that the applicant returned to the matrimonial home only once every 6 to 9 months.

The divorce was uncontested and on 15 August 2008, interim judgment was entered against the applicant.

On 21 January 2009, the respondent served her Affidavit of Assets and Means on the applicant’s Malaysian solicitors, Chong & Poh. Subsequently, Chong & Poh informed the respondent’s solicitors that it did not have instructions from the applicant to appear in court with respect to the ancillary matters and that the applicant had been informed to attend the hearing of the ancillary matters. Thereafter, the respondent’s solicitors corresponded with the applicant at his Malaysian address.

The applicant did not file his Affidavit of Assets and Means and did not appear at the hearing on the ancillary matters on 12 August 2009. On that day, the court made a number of orders. Two of them are relevant to the present proceedings.

The first order concerned [address redacted] (“the property”), which was in the joint names of the parties. The applicant was ordered to transfer the property to the respondent without any consideration. The property was subsequently registered in the respondent’s sole name on 23 October 2009.

The second order which the applicant sought to vary concerned custody of two children. As the applicant’s former solicitors, Chong & Poh, had indicated in a letter to the respondent’s solicitor on 17 June 2008 that the applicant agreed that the respondent should have custody as well as care and control of the two minor children, the court granted the respondent custody as well as care and control of the children (“the custody order”).

Three months after the ancillary orders were made, the applicant, wrote to the Registrar of the Supreme Court on 11 November 2009 to state that he did not agree with the ancillary orders. On 17 November 2009, the Registrar informed the applicant that the proper course of action for a litigant who is not satisfied with a...