TPO v TPP

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Darryl Soh
• Judgment Date: 28 June 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] SGFC 82
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Divorce 601913 of 2002 (Summons No 650071 of 2015)
• Year: 2016
• Published date: 01 July 2016
• Hearing Date: 17 March 2016
• Plaintiff Counsel: Applicant in person
• Defendant Counsel: Respondent in person.
• Subject Matter: Family law,Variation,Material change in circumstances,Good cause
• Citation: [2016] SGFC 82

District Judge Darryl Soh: Introduction

This matter concerns an application, SUM 650071/2015 (the “Application”), to vary two court orders relating to the maintenance and tertiary education funds that benefit the Applicant and Respondent’s (collectively referred to as the “Parties”) son. The Application was primarily motivated by the Applicant’s desire to stop all future litigation and interference by the Respondent, and to address any difficulty in enforcement that may arise from the Applicant’s intended move to the United Kingdom. The Applicant intended to accompany their son as he embarks on his overseas tertiary education in the United Kingdom later this year. On 17 March 2016, I dismissed the Application. The Applicant has since appealed. In these grounds, I explain the grounds of my decision in detail.

Background Facts

The background facts were not materially in dispute. The Parties were married on 16 June 1991 and they have a son (“the Child”) from their marriage. The Applicant filed for divorce in 2002 and their divorce was finalised on 13 January 2004. Since the divorce, the Parties frequented these courts as their post-divorce relationship was laden with disputes and acrimony. A staggering 25 distinct applications¹ were filed by either party, and they related to access to the Child and the Child’s maintenance:

	Application	Filed By	Nature of Application
1.	SUM 650458/2007	Respondent	Variation of Ancillary Orders (Access to the Child)
2.	SUM 650493/2007	Respondent	Amendment of Summons
3.	SUM 650068/2008	Respondent	Discovery
4.	SUM 650082/2008	Respondent	Vacate Hearing and Restore Summons
5.	SUM 650105/2008	Applicant	Variation of Ancillary Orders (Access to the Child and the Child’s Maintenance)
6.	SUM 650398/2008	Respondent	Variation of Ancillary Orders (Child’s Maintenance)
7.	SUM 650047/2010	Respondent	Variation of Ancillary Orders (Child’s Maintenance)
8.	MSS 2114/2010	Applicant	Enforcement of Maintenance
9.	MSS 2579/2010	Applicant	Enforcement of Maintenance
10.	SUM 650089/2010	Applicant	Variation of Ancillary Orders (Child’s Maintenance)
11.	SUM 650093/2010	Respondent	Variation of Ancillary Orders (Child’s Maintenance)
12.	MSS 3458/2010	Applicant	Enforcement of Maintenance
13.	SUM 650129/2010	Respondent	Variation of Ancillary Orders (Access to the Child)
14.	SUM 650180/2010	Applicant	Variation of Ancillary Orders (Access to the Child)
15.	SS 1267/2013	Respondent	Personal Protection Order
16.	SUM 650052/2013	Respondent	Variation of Ancillary Orders (Child’s Maintenance)
17.	SUM 650068/2013	Applicant	Variation of Ancillary Orders (Child’s Maintenance)
18.	SUM 650110/2013	Respondent	Variation of Ancillary Orders (Access to the Child)
19.	SUM 650116/2013	Applicant	Variation of Ancillary Orders (Child’s Maintenance)
20.	SUM 650118/2013	Respondent	Variation of Ancillary Orders (Child’s Maintenance)
21.	SUM 650128/2013	Applicant	Striking Out
22.	SUM 650008/2014	Respondent	Variation of Ancillary Orders (Child’s Maintenance)
23.	SUM 650048/2014	Respondent	Variation of Ancillary Orders (Access to the Child)
24.	SUM 650055/2014	Respondent	Variation of Ancillary Orders (Child’s Maintenance)
25.	MSS 1558/2015	Applicant	Enforcement of Maintenance

The majority of applications were filed by the Respondent. It would make little sense for me to elaborate in detail on the entire history of proceedings between the Parties at this juncture. Instead, it would be more expedient for me to set out the specific facts that are relevant and material to the Application in the context of my decision below.

As at the date of the hearing, the Child had just completed his National Service in Singapore and is awaiting matriculation to a university in the United Kingdom (“the UK University”) later this year. The Child will be 21 years old in the middle of the year.

SUM 650071/2015

On 23 November 2015, the Applicant applied to vary the following: Clauses 5(3)(e) and (f) of the court order made by the learned District Judge Sowaran Singh dated 19 December 2013 pertaining to the costs and expenses of the Child’s tertiary education (the “Order of 19 December 2013”); and Clause 29 of a consent order recorded by the learned District Judge Daphne Hong dated 13 January 2004 pertaining to the Child’s lump sum maintenance (the “Order of 13 January 2004”).

In summary, the Applicant sought to vary the above-mentioned Orders so that the Child will be in control of the respective funds when he turns 21 years old. Those clauses and the specific variations prayed for by the Applicant are set out in detail below.

Child’s Tertiary Education and Lump Sum Maintenance in Context

As agreed between the Parties at the divorce, the Child’s maintenance was split into two parts: The first part being lump sum maintenance of $234,000. This was deposited into an interest-bearing bank account for the Child’s on-going maintenance. After the $234,000 is depleted, any interest accrued thereon will be given to the Child when he turns 21 years old for his education; and The second part being a sum of $300,000 for the costs and expenses of the Child’s tertiary education. The Respondent was to ensure that this was in existence by the time the Child turned 18 years old, by way of an “education fund”.

The Respondent subsequently filed numerous variation applications in respect of the above orders. Most of these applications were dismissed. The one that was successful, and which was relevant for the court’s consideration in this Application, was the Respondent’s variation application in SUM 650052/2013 that led to the Order of 19 December 2013. In that application, the Respondent applied, inter alia, to be the sole administrator of the Child’s education fund. The learned District Judge Sowaran Singh ordered that, upon the maturity of the funds in a United Overseas Bank account in February 2014, the Respondent was to place the funds amounting to $300,000 into a Singapore Dollar fixed deposit account in the joint names of the Parties. Decisions in relation to that account were to be made jointly. In addition, the Applicant was to notify the Respondent if the Child received an offer of acceptance and the university indicated that the payment of fees were due. Within 14 days of the Applicant’s notification, the Parties were to transfer a sum of $75,000 into the Applicant’s designated bank account. Three additional sums of $75,000 each for the Child’s education were to be transferred for subsequent academic years of study. The Applicant was to provide details every six months on how those funds were disbursed.

The Respondent appealed against the Order of 19 December 2013 but it was dismissed on 14 April 2014. That same day, the Applicant alleged that the Respondent placed $300,000 in a fixed deposit account, setting up that account such that he held primary decision-making power as to the management of the account.

Variation of the Order of 19 December 2013

Clauses 5(3)(e) and (f) of the Order of 19 December 2013 is set out below. In view of the specific variation sought for by the Applicant, I have taken the liberty of including the text of Clause 5(3)(d) as a reference so that one may have a better appreciation of the context of those clauses:

d) Upon maturity of the funds in the United Overseas Bank Life Guaranteed Rewards Plan VII in February 2014, the Respondent shall place the funds amounting to SGD300,000 into a SGD Fixed Deposit in the joint names of the [Applicant] and the Respondent (with decisions to be made jointly by both of them) for a period of at least 12 months and thereafter for such periods as both parties may decide upon.

e) Upon notification by the [Applicant] that the University has given [the Child] an offer of acceptance of entry and that payment of any fees are due, the parties shall transfer a sum of $75,000 into the [Applicant’s] designated bank account within 14 days. The 3 additional sum [sic] of SGD$75,000 each for the subsequent academic years of study by [the Child] shall be transferred to the same account within 14 days by the parties upon notification by the [Applicant] that the fees for the next academic year are due.

f) The [Applicant] shall provide the Respondent with details of how the sum of SGD75,000 has been disbursed for [the Child’s] education every six months. These six monthly details shall be provided ever year by the end of January and June starting from January 2015. The account shall include the following: i) University fees and related expenses including air fare for overseas students’ exchange organized by the University as part of his degree studies. ii) Accommodation. iii) Food. iv) Cost of a return air-ticket for [the Child’s] yearly home visit to Singapore or to the [Applicant’s] country of residence. v) Medical/dental and medical/dental insurance expenses including the cost of spectacles. vi) Miscellaneous items.

In her Application, the Applicant sought to vary Clause 5(3)(e) by designating the Child, when he turns 21 years old, as the sole account holder and for the Child to be solely responsible for paying all costs and expenses related to and arising from his tertiary education from the said account. In doing so, the Applicant and the Respondent would be removed as joint account holders. Alternatively, the Applicant prayed for the Child to replace the Respondent as a joint account holder.

In respect of Order 5(3)(f), the Applicant prayed that it be varied to...