Tan Kay Poh v Tan Surida and Another
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judgment Date | 03 December 1988 |
| Date | 03 December 1988 |
| Docket Number | Divorce Petition No 2256 of 1987 |
| Court | High Court (Singapore) |
[1988] SGHC 92
Chao Hick Tin JC
Divorce Petition No 2256 of 1987
High Court
Family Law–Divorce–Adultery–Costs from co-respondent–Whether costs will be ordered from co-respondent when he could not be said to be responsible either for breakdown of marriage or for litigation–Family Law–Divorce–Adultery–Damages–Whether petitioner husband can claim damages from co-respondent on account of adultery committed by respondent wife with co-respondent–English courts no longer grant damages on petition for divorce on account of adultery–Section 85 Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1985 Rev Ed)–Rule 46 (3) Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1981 (GN No S 232/1981)
An uncontested decree nisi was granted to the husband on the ground that the marriage had broken down irretrievably as evidenced by the fact his wife committed adultery with the co-respondent and he found it intolerable to live with her. At the hearing on ancillary matters, the husband claimed damages against the co-respondent for having committed adultery with the wife and the husband claimed for costs against the co-respondent.
Held, dismissing both claims:
(1) When the Women's Charter (Cap 47, 1970 Rev Ed) was amended in 1980, the right of a petitioning husband to sue for damages was abolished with the repeal of the former s 104: at [5] and [6].
(2) The argument that, despite the repeal of the former s 104, the claim was permissible under s 85 of the current Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1985 Rev Ed) also failed. Section 85 only imported the prevailing principles or rules applicable in England. As English courts no longer granted damages on a petition for divorce on account of adultery, there was no basis for the claim: at [7]and [8].
(3) Rule 46 (3) of the Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1981 (GN No S 232/1981) only facilitated the enforcement of orders made by the court. It was not a substantive provision. It could not be the basis for a claim that the Women's Charter did not provide for: at [9].
(4) It was not disputed by the husband that his marriage was already badly strained before the co-respondent entered the picture and consequently committed adultery with the wife. While costs could be ordered against a co-respondent who was responsible either for the breakdown of the marriage or forthe litigation, this co-respondent could not be said to be responsible for either: at [12].
Butterworth v Butterworth and Englefield [1920] P 126 (refd)
Pritchard v Pritchard and Sims [1967] P 195; [1966] 3 All ER 601 (refd)
Scott v...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goh Yong Hng v Cheong Yen Teng (Zheng Yanping) (m.w.) and Another
...therefore that he should bear no responsibility for its breakdown. Further, she distinguished the case of Tan Kay Poh v Tan Surida & Anor [1988] SLR 983 where Chao Hick Tin JC had refused to make an order for costs against the co-respondent. In that case it was clear that the wife had left ......
-
Lee Hong Choon v Ng Cheo Hwee
... ... In , Lord Oliver in delivering the decision of the House of Lords said (p 820): ... The appeal is yet another example of the unhappy results flowing from the failure to which I ventured to draw attention in [1986] 1 FLR 412 to take sufficient care in the ... ...
-
JBB v JBA
...to the Women’s Charter in 1980, and has since been repeatedly affirmed by our courts (see Tan Kay Poh v Tan Surida and another [1988] 2 SLR(R) 515 at [5]; Cheng William v Chai Mei Leng [1999] 1 SLR(R) 1093 at [9]; AQS v AQR [2012] SGCA 3 at [39]). Under this regime, there is only one ground......
-
JBB v JBA
...to the Women’s Charter in 1980, and has since been repeatedly affirmed by our courts (see Tan Kay Poh v Tan Surida and another [1988] 2 SLR(R) 515 at [5]; Cheng William v Chai Mei Leng [1999] 1 SLR(R) 1093 at [9]; AQS v AQR [2012] SGCA 3 at [39]). Under this regime, there is only one ground......
-
Family Law
...not be responsible for more than half the costs of reasonable investigation fees. It distinguished the case of Tan Kay Poh v Tan Surida[1988] SLR 983, where the court found that the marriage was ‘dead’ before the adultery occurred and the co-respondent was not responsible for the breakdown ......