VLI v VLJ

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lo Wai Ping
• Judgment Date: 17 September 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] SGFC 77
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 102 of 2020 (Summons No 1910 of 2020)
• Published date: 23 September 2020
• Year: 2020
• Hearing Date: 17 July 2020,21 July 2020
• Plaintiff Counsel: Koh Tien Hua (Harry Elias Partnership LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: Defendant-In-Person.
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Interim injunction,Restraining termination of tenancy agreement,Section 5 of the Guardianship of Infants Act
• Citation: [2020] SGFC 77

District Judge Lo Wai Ping: Introduction

This case concerned a wife’s ex-parte application for interim injunctions relating to a one-year tenancy of a flat unit that her husband had entered into in March 2020 (prior to their marriage). The injunctions applied for seek to restrain the husband from terminating the tenancy early and to mandate that he continues to rent the specific flat unit (until the end of the tenancy) for her to occupy exclusively together with their infant son (“Child”). I did not grant the wife’s application. She has appealed against my decision and I set out below the reasons for my decision.

Background

The Plaintiff is the mother, and the Defendant the father, of the Child. The parties met in Thailand (Bangkok) in 2019. The Plaintiff was working there at the time. She is an Israeli citizen and an architect by profession. The Defendant is a Singaporean and an engineer.

In November 2019, the Plaintiff gave birth to the Child in Thailand. At the time of the birth of the Child, the parties were not married.

In March 2020, the Plaintiff and the Child moved from Thailand to Singapore. Subsequently, the parties were married in Singapore on 2 April 2020. The Defendant had been persuading the Plaintiff to marry him and relocate to Singapore with the Child. Earlier in January 2020, the Plaintiff had taken a day trip from Bangkok to Singapore to visit the Defendant. As per the Plaintiff’s request, the Defendant had agreed in writing during the visit in January 2020 that the Plaintiff would have custody of the Child.

In March 2020, the Defendant entered into a tenancy agreement dated 7 March 2020 (“Tenancy Agreement”) for a one-year tenancy of a flat unit at a condominium xxx in Singapore (“the Flat”) commencing from 7 March 2020. The Plaintiff and the Child (4 months old then) stayed in the Flat with the Defendant after their arrival in Singapore in March 2020.

After their marriage on 2 April 2020, the Defendant applied for a Long-Term Visit Pass (“LTVP”) for the Plaintiff. He also applied to register the Child as a Singapore citizen. Unfortunately, the parties’ relationship fell apart subsequently and the Defendant moved out of the Flat in July 2020. According to the Plaintiff, she had received an in-principle approval for her LTVP application in early June 2020 (subject only to payment), but the Defendant had cancelled her application thereafter.

Maintenance Proceedings in MSS No. 1581

The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant had deserted her and the Child (as he no longer lived at the Flat) and that he had also asked them to move out of the Flat and leave Singapore. The Plaintiff claimed that she had no money to survive, to pay rent, food and other necessities and she also had no friends in Singapore she could stay with. Whilst she had worked and lived in Bangkok for the past 7 years, she had given up her job in Bangkok to relocate to Singapore with the Child at the Defendant’s behest. She could not return to Bangkok as her work permit had been cancelled. She also had not been back to Israel for the past 7 years. As such, she had no choice but to commence maintenance proceedings against the Defendant for the Child and herself in Singapore and a maintenance summons MSS No. 1581 (“MSS 1581”) was issued in June 2020 against the Defendant under sections 69(1) and (2) of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353).

With her maintenance proceedings in MSS 1581 pending before the Family Court, the Plaintiff’s social visit pass to remain in Singapore was extended. According to the Plaintiff, the relevant authority (ICA) had agreed to extend her social visit pass until the conclusion of these maintenance proceedings.

Originating Summons No. 102 of 2020

Subsequently, on 15 July 2020, the Plaintiff started another action in the Family Court against the Defendant in Originating Summons No. 102 of 2020 (“Originating Summons”). This action was brought under section 5 of the Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122) (“GIA”) seeking orders that she be granted sole custody, care and control of the Child (with the Defendant having restricted and supervised access to the Child).

In addition, the Plaintiff also prayed in the Originating Summons for the following orders to be granted against the Defendant: the Defendant be ordered to reinstate, restore or reapply for the Plaintiff’s LTVP from the Immigration and Checkpoint Authority (“ICA”) and to do all that is necessary to enable the Plaintiff to obtain the LTVP; the Defendant be restrained, whether by himself or his servants and/or agents, from terminating the tenancy of the Flat before the expiration of the Tenancy Agreement; the Defendant be ordered to continue payment of the rent in the monthly sum of S$2,250 for the Flat for the duration of the tenancy of the same and in the event he has ceased to do so, to reinstate or restore the tenancy of the Flat by payment of the rent of S$2,250 a month and all arrears of rent for the duration of the tenancy and/or lease; the Defendant, whether by himself or his servants and/or agents, be restrained from evicting or removing the Plaintiff and/or the Child from occupation of the Flat for the duration of the tenancy and/or lease; the Defendant be ordered to permit the plaintiff and the Child to occupy the Flat for the duration of the tenancy and/or lease; and the Defendant, whether by himself or his servants and/or agents, be restrained from subletting any part of the Flat while the Plaintiff and the Child are residing therein.

Ex-Parte Summons No. 1910 of 2020

On the same day 15 July 2020, by way of an ex-parte Summons No. 1910 of 2020 (“SUM 1910”) filed under the Originating Summons, the Plaintiff also applied for interim injunctions against the Defendant on the terms of the prayers set out in paragraphs 10 (a) to (f) above. In addition, the Plaintiff also prayed in SUM 1910 to be granted interim sole custody, care and control of the Child pending the hearing of the Originating Summons.

As an urgent ex-parte hearing was sought for SUM 1910, it was fixed for hearing on 17 July 2020. The Defendant (who was notified in the late afternoon of 16 July 2020 of this) was present at the hearing on 17 July 2020. He confirmed that he had just been served that morning with the Originating Summons, SUM 1910 and the Plaintiff’s supporting affidavit of 15 July 2020 for the Originating Summons.

Dismissal of prayers pertaining to the Flat

I heard the Plaintiff’s SUM 1910 on an ex-parte basis, but with the presence of the Defendant....