Shaw Harold v Wong Phila Mae

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 31 October 1989
• Date: 31 October 1989
• Docket Number: Divorce Petition No 755 of 1985
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Shaw Harold

Plaintiff

and

Wong Phila Mae

Defendant

[1989] SGHC 95

Yong Pung How J

Divorce Petition No 755 of 1985

High Court

Civil Procedure–Extension of time–Application for adjournment to consider other party's affidavits–Discretion of court–Whether additional evidence adduced in affidavits would help court materially in deciding on matter before it–Family Law–Custody–Care and control–Application to vary custody order–Factors to be considered–Section 119 Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1985 Rev Ed)

The parties were divorced and the petitioner (“Shaw”) was granted sole legal custody, care and control of the children. The respondent (“Wong”) took out a summons in chambers to vary the custody order so that she would be given sole legal custody, care and control of the children, with reasonable access to Shaw. Wong's counsel sought an adjournment of the hearing on grounds that: (a) there was a multiplicity of affidavits to consider; and (b) he had received letters only the day before from two deponents to previous affidavits, as a result of which he would want to file further affidavits.

Held, dismissing the application:

(1) The court had an inherent power to adjourn a hearing in order to do justice between the parties. Adjournment was a matter of discretion for a judge to exercise according to the facts and circumstances of each case: at [8].

(2) In considering an application for an adjournment to enable a party to file further affidavits, a court should decide whether the additional evidence which would be the subject of these further affidavits would help the court materially in deciding on the matter before it. In this case, there was more than sufficient evidence before the court to consider the issue of custody. An adjournment to file further affidavits did not add anything to help the court decide the issue: at [8] and [16].

(3) On a balance of various competing and conflicting considerations, nothing could be more harmful to the children than transferring their custody back to the mother again. While the petitioner had himself admitted that he was a strict father, no adverse or negative factors or characteristics of him had been disclosed. The respondent stood out from the affidavits as a woman who loved her children dearly, but in an unconventional way, even to the exent of breaching an order of court which gave her care and control of the children. Moreover, custody had only recently changed hands, and the children's welfare would be best served by allowing them to settle for some time back in Singapore: at [18].

Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1985 Rev Ed) s 119 (consd)

Harry Elias and Flexie Sion (Harry Elias & Partners) for the petitioner

H E Cashin and S Selvaraj (Murphy & Dunbar) for the respondent.

Judgment reserved.

Yong Pung How J

1 Summons in Chambers No 3951 of 1989 in Divorce Petition No 755 of 1985 taken out by the respondent on 8 July 1989 came before me in chambers for hearing on 19 September 1989. The respondent sought the following order:

That the order made on 21 April 1989 granting the petitioner sole legal custody, care and control of the children, namely, Soo Mei, Soo Wei and Soo Xian be varied as follows:

That the respondent be granted sole legal custody, care and control of the children, namely, Soo Ling, Soo Mei, Soo Wei and Soo Xian with reasonable access to the petitioner.

2 On my dismissing the application, the respondent filed a notice of appeal on 20 October 1989 as to the custody of Soo Mei, Soo Wei and Soo Xian.

3 At the hearing before me on 19 September 1989, the respondent's...