TDK v TDL
Judge | Wong Keen Onn |
Judgment Date | 22 January 2015 |
Neutral Citation | [2015] SGFC 1 |
Citation | [2015] SGFC 1 |
Court | Family Court (Singapore) |
Published date | 11 March 2015 |
Docket Number | Divorce Suit No 2386 of 2012, Summons No 10837 of 2014 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Ms Adriene Cheong (M/S Harry Elias & Partners LLC) |
Defendant Counsel | Defendant in person |
Subject Matter | Family Law,Divorce,Whether Interim Judgment should be granted,Civil Procedure,Vacation of Trial dates |
Hearing Date | 26 June 2014,06 August 2014 |
The Plaintiff (wife) filed on 18 May 2012 for a divorce based on unreasonable behaviour of the husband. The Defendant husband filed a defence. The Plaintiff filed an amended Statement of Claim and then set down the matter after the Defendant failed to file his amended Defence. The Defendant then filed an application to stay the proceedings on
On 18 August 2014, the husband filed two appeals, the first against the Court’s decision not to grant an adjournment of the hearing and second, to ask to set aside the courts’ decision to grant the Interim Judgment. I now set out the reasons for my decisions.
Whether or not the contested divorce proceedings should be adjourned The Defendant filed an application in Summons 10837/2014 on 30 July 2014 to either adjourn or stay the further hearing of the contested divorce hearing in D2386/2012 on 6 August 2014 and it contained the following prayers:
The Defendant’s submissions can be summarised as follows:
The Plaintiff counsel urged the court to dismiss the Defendant’s summons 10837/2014 for the following reasons:
On the evidence, it was not true that the Defendant had engaged a lawyer Mr Ranjit Singh to act for him in this matter. No notice of appointment of a lawyer to act for the Defendant has been filed and there is no written correspondence either to the Court or to the Plaintiff counsel to confirm that the Defendant has engaged a lawyer to represent him in this case. More importantly, Mr Ranjit Singh came to the Court on that day to confirm that “he was not the Defendant’s lawyer and that he would not be acting for the Defendant in this matter”ix. In the face of Mr Ranjit Singh’s denial that he was acting for the Defendant, the Defendant changed tack and requested for a 6 to 8 weeks adjournment to either engage Mr Ranjit Singh or another lawyer to act for him.
I will first deal with the Defendant’s request to adjourn the hearing to give him more time to engage a counsel to act for him. It is pertinent to note that the authors of the Singapore Civil Procedure 2013, 3rd Edition Volume 1 at pages 624, 635 and 636 had summarised the position adopted in the Singapore Courts on the exercise of judicial discretion in dealing with applications to vacate a hearing date. At page 624, the authors said as follows:
Principles applicable to the vacation of hearing dates – In the interest of fair administration of justice and efficiency and to avoid wastage of judicial time, the High Court has adopted a strict view of the question of vacating trial dates. Strong compelling grounds must exist before the court will consider the exercise of its discretion. See the decisions of the Court of Appeal inChan Kern Miang v Kea Resources Pte Ltd [1998] 2 SLR(R) 85; at [13] 85 andSu Sh-Hsyu v Wee Yue Chew [2007] 3 SLR(R) 673; at [39]. In the latter case, the Court of Appeal emphasised that the present judicial policy in relation to the religious and punctilious observance of hearing dates and minimal tolerance for unmeritorious adjournments has not and will not be modified (at [39]). ….”
In
Court hearing days and time, being scarce and expensive resources, should not be wasted:
Tan Huay Lim v Loke Chiew Mun [1998] SGHC 255 at [10]. It follows thatstrong compelling grounds must prevail before the court will consider the exercise of its discretion to vacate trial dates:Chan Kern Miang v Kea Resources Pte Ltd [1998] 2 SLR(R) 85 at [13]. InUnilever Computer Services Ltd v Tiger Leasing SA [1983] 1 WLR 856 at 857, the English Court of Appeal clarified that where the court had fixed dates, it would require "cogent reasons" before such dates were vacated. The Singapore standard of "strong compelling grounds" is a higher threshold that requires demonstrably convincing reasons to move a court to exercise its discretion. In this regard,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
TDK v TDL
...2016 and Final Judgment was obtained in 1 August 2016. 3 See the decision in JAA v JAB [2014] SGDC 354 (RAS 107 of 2014) and TDK v TDL [2015] SGFC 1 (RAS 177 of 2014 and RAS 178/2014) at [1] to [4], JBK v JBL [2014] SGDC 355, TDK v TDL [2014] SGDC 61 (RAS 171 and 172 of 2013), TDK v TDL [20......
-
TDK v TDL
...RAS 162/2014 were finally dismissed on 26 January 2015. 3 See the decision in JAA v JAB [2014] SGDC 354 (RAS 107 of 2014) and TDK v TDL [2015] SGFC 1 (RAS 177 of 2014 and RAS 178/2014) at [1] to 4 See TDL v TDK [2017] SGHCF 20. The Defendant has appealed against the High Court decision. 5 N......