APK v APL

APK v APL

Application dismissed because the delay (over two months) was substantial and self‑inflicted, the intended appeal had low prospects (custody order matched applicant's earlier position and new evidence would likely fail the Ladd v Marshall requirements), and the respondent would suffer prejudice from the executed property transfer without assurance of reimbursement; therefore no extension of time was justified.

Citation
[2011] SGHC 66
Parties
Applicant (husband/defendant): APK; Respondent (plaintiff/wife): APL
Court
General Division of the High Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
25 March 2011
Case Number
DT No 765 of 2008 (Summons No 687 of 2010)
Procedural Posture
Divorce Proceedings — Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal Against Ancillary Orders / Interlocutory Post Final Judgment; High Court Application Dismissed
Outcome
Application for extension of time to file Notice of Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Notice of Appeal, Custody and Care of Children, Division of Matrimonial Property, Admission of Fresh Evidence
Source Language
English
Family Law Civil Procedure Appeals Extension of Time Notice of Appeal Custody and Care of Children Division of Matrimonial Property Admission of Fresh Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

APK

Applicant (husband/defendant)

APL

Respondent (plaintiff/wife)

Procedural Posture

Divorce Proceedings — Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal Against Ancillary Orders / Interlocutory Post Final Judgment; High Court Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether time should be extended to file a Notice of Appeal out of time
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's reasons for delay are satisfactory or excusable
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal has a real prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

Application dismissed because the delay (over two months) was substantial and self‑inflicted, the intended appeal had low prospects (custody order matched applicant's earlier position and new evidence would likely fail the Ladd v Marshall requirements), and the respondent would suffer prejudice from the executed property transfer without assurance of reimbursement; therefore no extension of time was justified.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time to file Notice of Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for extension of time to file Notice of Appeal dismissed