CourtCourt of Three Judges (Singapore)
JudgeChao Hick Tin JA
Judgment Date13 Oct 2005
Neutral Citation[2005] SGCA 48
Citation[2005] SGCA 48
Publication Date14 Oct 2005
Defendant CounselQuentin Loh SC, Vivien Teng, Kee Lay Lian (Rajah and Tann)
Docket NumberOriginating Motion No 24 of 2005
Plaintiff CounselMichael Hwang SC (Michael Hwang) and Bernice Loo Ming Nee (Allen and Gledhill)
SubjectAppeals,Whether proposed appeal raising custody issue involving question of law of importance,Leave,Whether leave should be granted based on test of realistic prospect of success,Husband in matrimonial case heard in district court appealing to High Court and thereafter wife seeking leave to appeal to Court of Appeal,Principles for court to apply when considering whether to grant leave to appeal,Civil Procedure

13 October 2005

Chao Hick Tin JA (delivering the judgment of the court):

1 This was an application by motion for leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court which reversed the decision of the district court (the Family Court) on a custody matter involving a child aged nine. Having heard the oral arguments of the parties, we refused leave. These grounds are issued in response to the arguments advanced by the applicant-wife that the circumstances under which the courts in Singapore should grant leave to appeal should be expanded following the English Court of Appeal decision in Smith v Cosworth Casting Processes Ltd [1997] 4 All ER 840 (“Smith v Cosworth”).

The background

2 The applicant-wife and the respondent-husband were married in 1991. They have two daughters. The older child is now aged 11 and the younger is nine years old.

3 In March 2001, the wife’s employer posted her to New York to take up a new appointment there. In April 2001, her husband and the two children went over to New York to join her. Within a matter of a day or two, the wife dropped a bombshell on the husband indicating that she wanted a divorce and asking him to sign a deed of separation prepared by her lawyer. About two months later the husband returned to Singapore with the older daughter, leaving the younger daughter in New York with the mother. Apparently, the husband could not take the younger child back to Singapore because the wife had insisted on keeping the child with her and refused to release the child’s passport to him to enable the child to make the journey home. We ought to add here that the wife claimed that there was an agreement with the husband, following the parties’ separation, that the younger daughter could remain with her. This assertion was disputed by the husband.

4 Soon after the husband returned to Singapore, the wife (together with the younger daughter) moved in to live with her male companion, who has three children (aged six to nine) from his first wife. On 19 October 2001, the wife filed a petition for divorce in Singapore. On 6 August 2002, a decree nisi dissolving the marriage was granted. The parties managed to agree on other ancillary matters except in respect of the custody of the two children. On 1 December 2004, the district judge, after considering all the circumstances of the case, including three custody evaluation reports, granted custody of the older daughter to the husband and the younger daughter to the wife. The district judge also made provisions for access by both parties to the child not in his or her custody so that the two children would have sufficient time together.

5 The husband was dissatisfied with the custody order made by the district judge with regard to the younger child and filed an appeal. The appeal came before Andrew Ang JC (as he then was) who made the following orders:

(a) There shall be joint custody of the younger child to the husband and the wife but care and control of the younger child shall be with the husband.

(b) That the husband and the wife agree on access, if possible, failing which there would be liberty to apply.

Before arriving at this conclusion, the judge had an extensive interview with the younger child to gauge her feelings on the matter.

Appeal framework

6 Section 28A(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) (“SCJA”) empowers the Chief Justice, “where he considers it necessary or expedient to improve efficiency in the administration of justice and to provide for more speedy disposal of proceedings commenced in the High Court” to, by order, direct that such proceedings be heard and determined by the district court. Section 28A(2)(b) of the SCJA further provides that the Chief Justice may, in any such order, make provision governing appeals relating to proceedings so transferred to the district court.

7 Pursuant to the powers under s 28A, the Chief Justice made the Supreme Court of Judicature (Transfer of Matrimonial, Divorce and Guardianship of Infants Proceedings to District Court) Order 2003 (S 557/2003) which is the Order now in force. Under para 2 of this Order, proceedings under Part X of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed), which covers divorce, custody and maintenance matters, commenced in the High Court, are transferred to be heard and determined by a district court. However, under the same paragraph, where the gross value of the matrimonial assets is asserted by any party to the proceedings to be of or above the value of $1.5m, the application for division of matrimonial assets must be transferred to and be heard and determined by the High Court.

8 Finally, in para 6 of the same Order, it is provided that an appeal shall lie to the High Court in respect of a decision of the district court in relation to any proceedings heard and determined by the district court pursuant to the Order. The paragraph further...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Ong Boon Huat Samuel v Chan Mei Lan Kristine
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 20 March 2007
    ...Tat (Asia Ascent Law Corporation) for the appellant Koh Tien Hua and Nicole Loh (Harry Elias Partnership) for the respondent. IW v IX [2006] 1 SLR (R) 135; [2006] 1 SLR 135 (distd) Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1993 Rev Ed)s 28A Supreme Court of Judicature (Transfer of Matrimoni......
  • Blq v Blr
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 30 December 2013
    ...& Co) for the respondent . Abdul Rahman bin Shariff v Abdul Salim bin Syed [1999] 3 SLR (R) 138; [1999] 4 SLR 716 (folld) IW v IX [2006] 1 SLR (R) 135; [2006] 1 SLR 135 (folld) Lau Loon Seng v Sia Peck Eng [1999] 2 SLR (R) 688; [1999] 4 SLR 408 (refd) Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong [199......
  • Lim Chi Szu Margaret and Another v Risis Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 31 October 2005
    ...summary of the law that has been followed ever since (and see, in particular, the recent Singapore Court of Appeal decision of IW v IX [2005] SGCA 48, where the more liberal approach adopted in the English Court of Appeal decision of Smith v Cosworth Casting Processes Ltd [1997] 4 All ER 84......
  • Virtual Map (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Singapore Land Authority and Another Application
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 6 January 2009
    ...that this court has established in Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong [1997] 3 SLR 489 (“Lee Kuan Yew”) at [16] (and reaffirmed in IW v IX [2006] 1 SLR 135; see also Singapore Civil Procedure 2007 ([16] supra) at para 57/16/14 and Singapore Court Practice 2006 ([16] supra) at para 56/3/8) that ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT