UHA v UHB

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Hoo Sheau Peng J
• Judgment Date: 13 November 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] SGHCF 27
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: HCF/Originating Summons (G) No 11 of 2017
• Published date: 17 November 2017
• Year: 2017
• Hearing Date: 04 September 2017
• Plaintiff Counsel: Suchitra A/P K Ragupathy (Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: The defendant in person.
• Subject Matter: Civil procedure,Appeals,Extension of time
• Citation: [2017] SGHCF 27

Hoo Sheau Peng J:

The parties are the parents of a 12-year-old girl (“the child”). On 4 September 2017, I granted the plaintiff-mother (“the mother”) an extension of time to file an appeal against an order made by the District Judge on 26 April 2017 (“the Order”) in Originating Summons (G) No 40 of 2016 (“OSG 40/2016”), which was an application by the defendant-father (“the father”) under s 5 of the Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122, 1985 Rev Ed). The father has appealed against my decision to grant a time extension. I now provide my reasons.

Brief background

The parties were never married to each other. The mother is a Japanese citizen. The father is an Australian citizen and a Singapore Permanent Resident. The child has dual citizenship in Australia and Japan. Between October 2007 and December 2014, the child lived with her parents in Singapore. In December 2014, the mother and the child moved to Japan where the child enrolled in an international school. The parties disputed whether they had agreed for this to be a temporary or permanent relocation arrangement.

On 26 April 2017, the District Judge heard OSG 40/2016 and ordered, amongst other things, that the parents shall have joint custody, as well as shared care and control, of the child. Also, the mother was ordered to bring the child from Japan to Singapore by 1 July 2017. The decision to relocate the child was and is at the heart of the substantive dispute about the Order.

Pursuant to r 821(n) read with r 825 of the Family Justice Rules 2014 (S 813/2014) (“the FJR”), the mother had until 11 May 2017 (being within 14 days after the date of the Order) to file her appeal (as 10 May 2017 was a public holiday). On 3 May 2017, the mother submitted a request for further arguments but this was rejected by the District Judge on 8 May 2017. The mother stated that on or about 7 May 2017, and then again on 9 May 2017, she instructed her then-solicitors to file an appeal. Five days after the time for appeal had lapsed, the mother attempted to file a notice of appeal on 16 May 2017. Shortly after the notice of appeal was rejected, the mother filed this application for an extension of time on 19 May 2017, eight days after the expiry of the time for filing an appeal.

On 1 July 2017, in compliance with the Order, the mother brought the child to Singapore. On 15 August 2017, the mother’s application to stay the execution of the Order was dismissed. At the time of the hearing before me on 4 September 2017, both the mother and the child were in Singapore on social visit passes. The mother’s social visit pass was to expire on 30 August 2017, but was extended to 6 September 2017 on account of the hearing before me. The child was residing with the mother for four days a week at a serviced apartment, and with the father for three days a week at his residence. Due to the child’s immigration status pending these proceedings, as well as the disagreements between the parties about the appropriate schooling arrangements for the child, the child has not attended school since she arrived in Singapore.

The parties’ submissions

The mother explained that even though she had instructed her previous solicitors to file an appeal within time, there was a slip-up by them. However, the length of the delay was not substantial. The short delay caused no prejudice to the father. The mother submitted that she had a reasonable chance of success in the appeal because the Order was not in the child’s best interests. The Order was made without taking into account the views of the child, and without first ensuring that immigration permits, accommodation and living expenses for the child and the mother were secured, and that schooling arrangements for the child were made. Without a secure immigration status, the mother could possibly be repatriated and separated from the child. Further, the mother pointed to matters which were discovered after the child’s return to Singapore and which were allegedly suppressed at the earlier hearing of OSG 40/2016. These included the facts that the father had become unemployed and had moved with a new partner to a new place of residence which was unfamiliar to the child. It was submitted that these facts were material considerations which would have persuaded the court against making the Order.

The father submitted several reasons to dismiss the application. First, although the delay was short, it was critical that the appeal be filed on time as preparations had to be made for the child’s schooling, accommodation and immigration permit in Singapore. Due to the delay, the child had already returned to Singapore. Allowing the mother to now appeal would be “incredibly disruptive” for the child and himself. Second, the fact that the mother’s former solicitors had failed to act on...