Teng Cheng Sin v Law Fay Yuen (m.w.)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Kan Ting Chiu J
• Judgment Date: 02 April 2003
• Neutral Citation: [2003] SGHC 76
• Docket Number: District Court Appeal No 38 of
• Date: 02 April 2003
• Published date: 07 October 2003
• Year: 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Hee Theng Fong and Tay Wee Chong (Hee Theng Fong & Co)
• Citation: [2003] SGHC 76
• Defendant Counsel: Respondent in person
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Failure to give copies of documents to appellant,Referral by trial judge to incidents subsequent to complaint,Evidence,Natural justice,Orders for protection,Allegations that trial not fair and impartial,Administrative Law,Whether direct evidence of assault,Family violence,Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed) s 65,Grant of personal protection order,Medical reports,Family Law,Documentary evidence

1 The Family Court heard an application by a wife for a personal protection order against her husband. Both parties appeared in person at the hearing before a District Judge. After hearing them, the judge issued the order sought. The husband’s appeal against the order came up before me.

2 The parties were married in 1990 and have three children. The marriage ran into difficulties and the wife Law Fay Yuen left the matrimonial home on 6 December 2001.

3 However, she would return to the house from time to time. The husband Teng Cheng Sin disapproves of this and believes that she should not do that without his consent or an order of court.[1] She on the other hand feels that she is entitled to return to the matrimonial house.[2]

4 When the wife returned to the house on the morning of 2 January 2002 matters came to a head. She had gone to the house as it was the first day of school and she went to pick up apparel and books for her two sons. She said that when her husband saw her he pulled her necklace on which she wore a whistle, and caused the necklace to break. She alleged that he then pushed her to the front gate of the house. When she held onto the gate he took his keys from his pocket and struck her hands with them. After she released her hold on the gate, he closed the gate.

5 She called for police assistance. The recorded message read “I having some problem with my husband. Require assistance.” Another call was made by a person identified as Mr Sia that “A Chinese family is having a dispute.”

6 The police arrived and attended to her. She went to the National University Hospital on their advice and made a police report at 1.35 pm, setting out her complaint against her husband. At about 3.21 pm she was examined by Dr Elaine Liu at the Accident and Emergency Department of the hospital. Dr Liu prepared a report on the examination. She set down the wife’s account of the events, and noted that she had two abrasions on the right side of her lower neck and bruises and scratches on her forearms and hands. In a further report Dr Liu stated that she was unable to confirm if those injuries were self-inflicted or inflicted by an external party, and could only say that they were consistent with the history given by the wife. The wife obtained another report from Dr Perry Travers, a consultant at the Emergency Department at NUH who concurred that the injuries were consistent with the alleged assault.

7 The husband gave his account of the events of that morning at the hearing. He said (with emphasis added by me)

On 2^nd January 2002 at about 9 am while I was brushing my teeth, preparing to go to work, my maid nervously told me that Complainant came again and packed two big bags of things to take them away. Immediately I rushed down but could not find anyone. I then saw Complainant standing on the grass patch. I told her not to disturb the kids as they are so pitiful. Complainant tried to get in on 2^nd January 2002 to take away the uniforms.

I asked her to leave what she has taken and not disturb us further. Complainant did not answer me and walked towards the gate. Complainant lied saying that I pushed her all the way to the gate. She walked to the gate on her own. She also lied to say that I pulled her whistle. How could she blow the whistle if I had taken it away from the start. ... How could so many things happen in three minutes? Just before I closed the gate, Complainant put her hand in between the gate. I tried to push Complainant’s hand away because I saw her hand between the gate. The momentum of the gate caused it to hit both our hands. I also sustained some abrasions but I could treat myself. The lesion is negligible.[3]

8 In this account, there was no altercation between them. He asked her to leave, she ignored him and went to the gate. He did not explain why it was necessary for him to go to the gate with her or to close the gate when her hands were on it.

9 The family maid Sumiati bte Merdi also gave evidence at the hearing. She did not see the events. She heard the husband ask the wife to leave and the wife shouting back. She also heard a whistle, but she did not know who blew it. Then the husband left the house, and the wife called for the police.[4]

10 The district judge accepted the evidence of the wife. She stated in para 11 of the Grounds of Decision that

Whilst there exists the possibility that Mdm Law’s injuries could have been self-inflicted, I have to make a finding on the evidence and I am of the view that this is unlikely on the facts. Apart from the opinions of the two doctors that the injuries were consistent with the case history provided by Mdm Law, there are also other important aspects of the case which bear close scrutiny. Mdm Law’s description of the assault on 2 January 2002 was at all material times, lucid and generally consistent in content. She lost no time in gathering the evidence necessary to support her case. She lodged a police report on the day of the incident and sought prompt medical attention. She had called the police to the matrimonial home immediately after the incident. Contrary to what Mr Teng would have the court believe, she would have had little or no opportunity to fabricate the assault and to inflict injuries upon herself in the circumstances. I would accord due weight to the police and medical reports as these are contemporaneous records of the events of 2 January 2002 and the doctor’s findings respectively.

11 She also referred to reports of Dr Liu and Dr Travers that the wife’s injuries were consistent with an assault, and found it improbable that the injuries were caused by the momentum of the gate.[5]

12 The district judge had before her...