VQZ v VRA

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chia Wee Kiat
• Judgment Date: 21 June 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] SGFC 69
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 08 April 2021
• Docket Number: FC/D 3024/2020 (FC/RA 2/2021)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Plaintiff in-person
• Defendant Counsel: Ms Christine Low, Ms Carol Yuen and Mr Peter Low (Peter Low & Choo LLC)
• Subject Matter: Family law,Pleadings,Amendment
• Published date: 26 June 2021

District Judge Chia Wee Kiat: Background

The Plaintiff shall be referred to as the “Husband” and the Defendant shall be referred to as the “Wife”.

On 21 July 2020, the Husband commenced divorce proceedings on the ground that the marriage has broken irretrievably in that parties have lived apart for a continuous period of at least 4 years immediately preceding the filing of the Writ for Divorce.

The material parts of the Statement of Particulars (“SOP”) state as follows: a) The Parties got married on 8 November 2008. They have no children. Parties were initially residing together in the Defendant’s parents’ property located at [redacted]. b) Over time, differences arose between the Parties over the course of the marriage. Parties often bickered and did not see eye to eye as the Defendant was obsessive and prioritized the needs of her dogs as well as being paranoid over the parents wanting to harm her dogs. In furtherance, the Defendant was also a compulsive hoarder and made the living space unbearable. c) Despite the Plaintiff’s efforts at being a supportive and understanding spouse, the Defendant refused to heed repeated advice to change her behaviour. She continued to be paranoid, hoarded items and refused to look for a job. It was the Defendant’s behaviour which led to a breakdown of communication between Parties. This loss of proper communications between Parties led to countless unresolved conflicts and quarrels and Parties found themselves locked in long cold wars with each other. d) The relationship between Parties eventually deteriorated to the extent that the Plaintiff could no longer tolerate staying in the marriage. As such, the Plaintiff left the Defendant’s parents’ said property sometime in January of 2013 with the intention of separating from the Defendant and leading his own separate life from her. The Plaintiff moved back into his parents’ home located at [redacted]. e) The Plaintiff had often broached the topic of a divorce with the Defendant but she repeatedly rejected the Plaintiff’s attempts at an uncontested divorce proceedings. f) To-date, Parties continue living at their said respective separate residences. g) The Parties have been living separate lives for a continuous period since January 2013, of at least 4 years immediately preceding the date of this Writ. The Parties have also abandoned any idea of reconciliation. h) Notwithstanding Parties’ separation in January 2013 and that Parties had no semblance of marital life, the Defendant had, over the years, had refused to take charge of her own life and expect the Plaintiff to pay for her necessities. i) The Plaintiff had, in consideration of the breakdown of the Defendant’s relationship with her own parents, provided financial support to her even with ongoing discussions of an uncontested divorce. Be that as it may, the Plaintiff confirms the following, that for at least the last 4 years immediate preceding the date of this Writ:- i. Parties did not associate themselves as husband and wife; ii. Parties did not engage in any marital relationship; iii. Parties did not have their meals together, neither did Parties go out together for meals as husband and wife; iv. Parties did not celebrate festive occasions or birthdays together; v. Parties had no community life as husband and wife; and vi. Parties only communicated in respect of issue concerning the divorce proceedings.

The Wife filed a Memorandum of Appearance on 5 August 2020 indicating her intention to defend the action.

On 19 August 2020, the Wife filed FC/SUM 2359/2020 (“SUM 2359”) seeking an extension of time to file and serve her Defence due on 19 August 2020 by 4 September 2020.

On 26 August 2020, the Wife’s solicitors wrote to the Court to request that SUM 2359, which was fixed for hearing on 28 August 2020, be withdrawn and the hearing date vacated as the Husband had consented to the extension of time.

On 4 September 2020, the Wife filed her Defence.

On 8 September 2020, the Husband instructed his solicitors to propose that they hold the filing of pleadings to proceed to mediation.¹

The Wife’s solicitors replied on 11 September 2020, indicating the Wife’s preference was for pleadings to continue but she was open to mediation “at the appropriate time”. ²

On 15 September 2020, the Husband instructed his solicitors to reiterate his position that mediation should be explored for a global resolution.³

The Wife’s solicitors replied on 18 September 2020, reiterating the Wife’s position that she was not closed to mediation “at the appropriate juncture” and that she shared the sentiment that mediation would save parties costs and time, if attempted “at the appropriate time”.⁴

The Husband filed his reply on 23 September 2020 and in a final effort to resolve the matter amicably, he instructed his solicitors on 9 October 2020 to again reach out to the Wife’s solicitors to propose mediation.⁵ The material parts of the 9 October 2020 letter read as follows:⁶ 2. We are instructed to write to obtain your client’s final position on mediating this matter and reaching an amicable resolution. As your client is aware, our client had never wanted this matter to be contentious and has done all he can for these proceedings to be as amicable as possible. However, it would appear that your client has not taken the same approach. 3. Our client wishes for us to reiterate his position that the marriage has broken down irretrievably and there is no possibility for reconciliation. Kindly confirm if your client is agreeable for the divorce to proceed on our client’s claim and for parties to proceed to mediation to resolve the ancillary matters. 4. Please let us hear from you by 4PM on Monday 12 October 2020.

The Wife’s solicitors replied on 12 October 2020, indicating that they would obtain the Wife’s instructions.⁷

The Husband states that despite the Wife’s claim that she was open to mediation “at the appropriate time”, there was no indication or explanation from the Wife as to when “appropriate time” would ever be.⁸ In light of the Wife’s insistence that there was no separation and refusal to mediate, the Husband decided to proceed on an alternative ground based on the fact that the Wife has behaved in a manner that it is unreasonable for the Husband to continue living with her.⁹

On 14 October 2020, the Husband filed FC/SUM 3091/2020 (“SUM 3091”) to amend the Statement of Claim (“SOC”) and SOP. The Wife objected to the application.

SUM 3091 was heard before the learned Assistant Registrar Sarah Chua (“the AR”) on 1 February 2021. Having heard the parties, the AR granted the Husband leave to amend in these words:¹⁰ 1. Order-in-terms of Prayer 1 of SUM 3091/2020. The important question is whether the ends of justice are served by allowing the proposed amendment. All relevant issues should be investigated, provided the other party will not be prejudiced in a way which cannot be compensated by costs. All relevant circumstances should be considered by the Court before it exercises its discretion whether it would allow an amendment. Facts in Asia Business Forum can be distinguished. Given the stage at which the application to amend is taken out, it cannot be said that there was any prejudice occasioned which cannot be compensated by costs. 2. Defendant to file and serve amended Defence by 22 February 2021. 3. Plaintiff to file and serve amended Reply by 8 March 2021.

The AR ordered costs of $800 to the Wife being costs thrown away.

Dissatisfied with the AR’s decision, the Wife filed Notice of Appeal vide FC/RA 2/2021 (“RA 2”) on 15 February 2021.

RA 2 was heard before me on 8 April 2021. The Husband, who filed a Notice of Intention to Act in Person on 1 April 2021, was absent. The Wife’s counsel, Ms Christine Low, quite properly asked if the hearing should be adjourned so that the Husband could attend the hearing.

I indicated that there was no necessity to adjourn the hearing as the Husband had filed a written submission (which he titled “The Plaintiff’s pointers”) and had indicated that he would not be attending the hearing. The Husband had asked the court to take his “pointers” into consideration and was content to leave it to the court to make the appropriate decision.¹¹

I further indicated that there is no concept of a default judgement in an appeal or in family proceedings in general and would proceed to hear the appeal based on its merits. As the Wife’s counsel did not seek to argue otherwise, it is unnecessary for me to elaborate on the reason for my taking such a position save to point out that the reasoning was derived from the case authorities of AOO v AON [2011] SGCA 51 and Yap Chai Ling and anor v How Wa Yi [2016] 1 SLR 660 and an analysis of the relevant provisions in the Family Justice Rules.

After hearing the Wife’s submissions, I dismissed the Wife’s appeal with brief grounds and indicated that I would issue full written grounds to explain the reasons for my decision in the event of an appeal. Since the Husband had elected not to attend the hearing and neither did he address the Court on costs in his written submissions, I made no order on costs notwithstanding that the outcome of the appeal was in his favour.

As the Wife has appealed against my decision vide FC/RAS 9/2021 filed on 15 April 2021, I now set out my grounds of decision.

The Wife’s position

The Wife’s position may be summarised as follows: The application comes late in the day. The Husband had at least two months between the filing of the Writ for Divorce and Reply to amend the Statement of Claim but did not do so.¹² The Husband had “hounded” her for a divorce for close to a year before he filed the proceedings.¹³ He has been ably represented by lawyers and yet he now seeks to completely change the course of the proceedings.¹⁴ The Husband must be “estopped” from attempting a second bite of...