Lee Pauline Bradnam v Lee Thien Terh George

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yeong Zee Kin AR
• Judgment Date: 18 May 2006
• Neutral Citation: [2006] SGHC 84
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2006
• Published date: 25 May 2006
• Plaintiff Counsel: Anamah Tan and Veronica Joseph
• Defendant Counsel: Koh Tien Hua and Tan Shin Yi
• Citation: [2006] SGHC 84

18 May 2006 Judgment reserved.

AR Yeong Zee Kin:

1. The issue before me is whether an order for periodic maintenance falls within the definition of a judgment within the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (RECJA), and is thus registrable under the Act. Having heard submission of counsel, I am of the view that periodic maintenance orders are not registrable or if they are, it is neither just nor convenient to register the periodic maintenance order in this case.

Brief facts

2. The Plaintiff and the Defendants were married in Singapore in 1982; they have 3 children from their marriage. The marriage broke down and the children are now living with the Plaintiff in Australia; the Defendant resides in Singapore.

3. In 2002, the Defendant commenced divorce proceedings in Australia and decree absolute was made on 29 June 2003. In respect of ancillary matters, a Child Support Agreement was entered into on 28 August 2003. The Child Support Agreement was registered as an Order of Court on 15 June 2005. Upon its registration, the Family Court of Australia in Melbourne noted:

… that the parties have entered into a child support agreement pursuant to which the husband pays periodic child support for each of the children in the sum of $24,266.66 per annum together with tuition expenses at Knox Private School and private health insurance at the current rate. Whilst all 3 children are children in respect of whom a child support agreement can operate, the periodic child support is the equivalent of $1,400 per week. As each child ceases to be covered by the child support agreement, the weekly payment of child support will be reduced by the amount of child support previously payable in respect of the child in respect of whom the child support agreement no longer operates. However it is the intention of the parties that, upon the younger two children attaining the age of 17 years, the parties will do all acts and things necessary to consent to an order being made pursuant to Section 66L(1) of the Act which provides that the husband provide periodic child maintenance equivalent to that payable under the child support agreement for that child after the expiration of the child support agreement and notwithstanding that the child has attained the age of 18 years and to enable the child to complete his first degree at a tertiary education institution.

4. Under the Child Support Agreement, the Agreement was to have been registered at a child support agency. However, the agency declined to register the Agreement as the Defendant was not a resident in Australia for tax purposes at the time the Agreement was entered into.

5. The Defendant breached the Order by failing to pay maintenance for the children; arrears stood at AUD$132,179.28 at the time when the originating summons was filed. As the Plaintiff believed that the Defendant has assets in Singapore, she instructed solicitors to register the Order made by the Family Court of Australia in Singapore under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (RECJA).

Whether maintenance orders are registrable judgments

6. The Minister of Law, via Declaration under Section 5 of the RECJA, has extended the RECJA to the Family Court of Australia. A judgment under the RECJA means:

any judgment or order given or made by a court in any civil proceedings, … whereby any sum of money is made payable, …

7. Under section 3 of the RECJA, an application may be made and the High Court may, if it is just and convenient for the judgment to be enforced in Singapore, order the judgment to be registered accordingly. There are, however, some restrictions to registration under sub-section (2).

8. For a judgment to be registrable under the RECJA, it has to be for a sum of money that is payable. Drawing an analogy from cases where a foreign judgment is enforced locally under common law, the foreign judgment sought to be registered has to be final and conclusive: Hong Pian Tee v Les Placements Germain Gauthier Inc [2001] 3 SLR 418; [2002] SGCA 18. The requirement for final and conclusiveness is also a prerequisite for registration under the RECJA: section 3(2)(e)—

Restrictions on registration.

(2) No judgment shall be ordered to be registered under this section if—

…

(e) the judgment debtor satisfies the registering court either that an appeal is pending, or that he is entitled and intends to appeal, against the judgment; …

9. Hence, a judgment that is registrable under the Act must be final and conclusive in the sense that no appeal is pending. Put in another way, since only judgments whereby a sum of money is made payable are registrable under the Act, a foreign judgment has to be one for a defined sum and which is payable immediately before it can be considered for registration. Although, to my mind, it is conceivable that a judgment which is for a defined sum payable in defined traunches — where the amount payable and the date payable is clearly defined — may also be registrable.

10. In contrast, an order for...