UQL v UQM

JudgeGoh Zhuo Neng
Judgment Date02 July 2020
Neutral Citation[2020] SGFC 60
Citation[2020] SGFC 60
CourtFamily Court (Singapore)
Published date09 July 2020
Docket NumberFC/D 2475/2017, FC/SUM 2444/2019, HCF/DCA 33/2020
Plaintiff CounselMr Malcus Poh Jun Zhe (Chung Ting Fai & Co.)
Defendant CounselMs Jeanny Ng (Jeanny Ng & Co)
Subject MatterVariation of Conduct of Sale,Insertion of Registrar's Empowerment Clause
Hearing Date25 March 2020
District Judge Goh Zhuo Neng: INTRODUCTION

In this application, the Plaintiff prayed for the variation of an ancillary order made on 19 October 2018 (the “Order”). In respect of the division of the matrimonial assets, the Order provided that: The matrimonial home was to be sold in the open market within 6 months of the date of the Order (by April 2019). The sales proceeds of the matrimonial home after deducting the outstanding mortgage loan and costs and expenses of the sale, would be divided 60 : 40 in favour of the Plaintiff. After receiving their share of the sale proceeds, parties were to refund to their Central Provident Fund (“CPF”) account any monies utilised from their CPF account for the purchase of the matrimonial home and interest that had accrued on those monies. Parties would have joint conduct of the sale. From 1 October 2018, the Defendant would bear the utility bills of the matrimonial home. From 1 October 2018, the payment for the property tax, insurance payments and town council charges for the matrimonial home were to be split 60 : 40 between the parties with the Plaintiff paying more. The Plaintiff would pay for the expenses first and be reimburses from the Defendant’s share of the sale proceeds of the matrimonial home. Parties shall retain all other assets (aside from the matrimonial home) held in their sole name.

In this variation, the Plaintiff was seeking to be given sole conduct of the sale of the matrimonial home, for a registrar’s empowerment clause to be inserted into the Order and for the Defendant to vacate the matrimonial home within 1 month from the date the matrimonial flat is sold. The Defendant is currently living in the matrimonial home with the child of the marriage.

I heard both parties on 25 March 2020, and varied the terms of the Order to provide that: That the sale of the matrimonial home in the open market would be completed by 25 March 2021. That the Plaintiff would have sole conduct of the sale of the matrimonial home and be able to unilaterally fix the price of the property, appoint and fix the remuneration of lawyers and agents for the marketing and sale of the property. A registrar’s empowerment clause would be inserting, empowering the Registrar or Assistant Registrar of the Family Justice Courts, to execute, sign or indorse all necessary documents relating to the sale of the matrimonial home on behalf of the Defendant, should the Defendant fail to do so within 7 days of written request. That the Defendant must vacate the matrimonial home 4 weeks before the date of the completion of sale for the matrimonial home.

On 3 April 2020, the Defendant filed her Notice of Appeal against the whole of my decision. The Plaintiff has not appealed against my decision. My full grounds of decision is set out below.

THE LAW

The power to vary an ancillary order for the division of property under section 112(4) of the Women’s Charter (“WC”) has to be exercised narrowly and does not extend to the power to revisit or reopen the order.

A variation in this case does not necessarily require a material change of circumstances. In a scenario like the present where a variation of an order relating to the division of property is sought and the order has not yet been implemented, the Court of Appeal in AYM v AYL [2013] 1 SLR 924 (“AYM”), has set a high threshold, requiring the order to be unworkable under the following two scenarios. Scenario 1 – Where the order might become impossible to implement due to new circumstances which have arisen. These new circumstances would have to had so radically changed the situation so that to implement the order would be to implement something radically different from what was originally intended.[25 to 27] Scenario 2 – Where the order is unworkable to begin with. This may arise where the is a lacuna or gap in the ancillary matters order. Here, the Court is concerned with stepping in to address the lack of administrative functionality of the order. [28 and 29]

The Order also contained a “liberty to apply” clause. As stated by the Court of Appeal in APE v APF [2015] 5 SLR 783, [12], such orders are only intended to supplement the main orders of the court in form and convenience so that the main orders of the court may...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT