BBL v BBM

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tan Shin Yi
• Judgment Date: 14 June 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] SGDC 209
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Divorce No. 3569 of 2009, Summon No. 6100 of 2012
• Year: 2012
• Published date: 16 July 2012
• Hearing Date: 14 June 2012
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ms Stephanie Looi and Mr Lei Wei Rong (M/s RHT Law Taylor Wessing LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Godwin Campos (M/s Godwin Campos LLC)
• Citation: [2012] SGDC 209

District Judge Tan Shin Yi: Introduction

This summons application is for (i) leave for the Plaintiff to bring the child of the marriage (“B”) for an overseas holiday to Canada from 24th May 2012 to 24th June 2012; and (ii) for the Defendant to hand over B’s passport to the Plaintiff within 48 hours of any Order made. A week before this application was filed, the Plaintiff had applied for leave to relocate to Canada with B by September 2012. The relocation application was originally fixed to be heard together with this application, but is now adjourned for hearing on 22 June 2012.

After hearing submissions from the counsel of both parties, I dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for leave to bring B for a holiday to Canada, and the Plaintiff has now appealed against my decision.

In order to understand the reasons for my decision, one cannot look at the application in isolation, that is, without full consideration of the surrounding circumstances in this divorce matter. At first blush, the application seems to be an innocent one but as the related facts become clear, one would appreciate that if the application is granted, there is a very real risk that the child would not be returned to Singapore.

Important background facts The Ancillary Orders obtained in the Defendant’s absence

The Plaintiff filed for divorce in 2009 and obtained an order for substituted service of the divorce documents on the Defendant by way of posting on the matrimonial home at xxx (“the HDB Flat”) and on the Notice Board of the Subordinate Courts. The Defendant did not enter an appearance in the proceedings.

In October 2010, the Plaintiff obtained ancillary orders in the Defendant’s absence, inter alia, as follows (“the Ancillary Orders”): The Plaintiff shall have sole custody, care and control of B with reasonable access to the Defendant. The Plaintiff is at liberty to apply for a new passport for B (this was necessary as the Defendant had B’s passport). The Defendant’s rights, share and title in the HDB Flat and in xxx (“the Condominium”) shall be transferred to the Plaintiff without the need to refund the Defendant’s CPF monies used for both properties. The Plaintiff to bear the costs of the transfers. The Registrar of the Subordinate Courts is empowered to sign on behalf of the Defendant, all documents necessary for the transfer of the matrimonial properties to the Plaintiff, if the Defendant failed to sign such documents within 7 days of written request to him by way of posting on his last known address (the HDB Flat) and on the Notice Board of the Subordinate Courts.

The Defendant was not aware of the divorce proceedings until a few months later, when he received a letter from the CPF Board regarding the Ancillary Orders. The Defendant quickly instructed solicitors and applied to set aside the Ancillary Orders in March 2011. The Defendant explained that he had moved out of the HDB Flat to stay with his mother sometime in 2009, and that the Plaintiff was aware of this as B visited him at his mother’s home twice a month. The Plaintiff had the Defendant’s mobile and office phone numbers and could have contacted him easily. Yet the Plaintiff had served the divorce documents, as well as notice of the transfer of the properties, on the HDB Flat, even though she was ostensibly aware that doing so would not bring the proceedings or the transfer to the Defendant’s attention.

After applying to set aside the Ancillary Orders, the Defendant instructed his solicitors to write to the Plaintiff’s solicitors several times, requesting assurances that the matrimonial properties would not be sold or that if the properties were already sold, the Plaintiff’s solicitors would hold the sales proceeds as stakeholders pending the hearing of his application. The Plaintiff’s solicitors did not respond. Subsequent property searches on the matrimonial properties revealed that the HDB Flat was transferred to the Plaintiff in March 2011 and sold by her in May 2011 even though she was already put on notice of the Defendant’s application to set aside the Ancillary Order, and had sufficient time to stop the sale or to inform her solicitors that the sale was already taking place. The Plaintiff did not disclose the sale of the HDB Flat in her affidavits for the setting aside application.

The Ancillary Orders were set aside in June 2011, and the Plaintiff appealed against this but her appeal was dismissed. The Plaintiff then filed an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal out of time, but her application was also dismissed.

The Injunction Order against the Plaintiff

In May 2011, the Defendant received a letter from the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority of Singapore (ICA), asking him to deliver up B’s passport (which has been in his...