AEH v AEI

AEH v AEI

Leave was granted. The court held that r 96(3) has two limbs and the second limb (three months from the last hearing of ancillary relief including appeals) applied; counsel had overlooked the second limb and the application was therefore out of time absent leave. Section 123(1) does not prevent finalisation where the court has already made orders concerning the welfare of every child because "arrangements" in s 123(1) refers to arrangements made by the parties, not court orders, and mere dissatisfaction with a court order does not indefinitely delay extraction of the certificate.

Citation
[2015] SGHC 255
Parties
Applicant/husband: AEH; Respondent/wife: AEI
Court
General Division of the High Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
2 October 2015
Case Number
Divorce Suit No 1070 of 2012 (Summons No 4196 of 2015)
Procedural Posture
Divorce (divorce Suit No 1070 of 2012; Summons No 4196 of 2015) / Leave Application to File and Extract Certificate of Final Judgment (divorce) Out of Time
Outcome
Leave granted for the husband to file and extract the Certificate of Final Judgment (Divorce) notwithstanding expiration of time under FJR r 96(3).
Legal Topics
Interim Judgment Finalisation, Interpretation of Family Justice Rules R 96(1) and R 96(3), S 123(1) Women’s Charter (welfare of Children), Ancillary Relief, Parenting Plan
Source Language
English
Family Law Civil Procedure Interim Judgment Finalisation Interpretation of Family Justice Rules R 96(1) and R 96(3) S 123(1) Women’s Charter (welfare of Children) Ancillary Relief Parenting Plan

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AEH

Applicant/husband

AEI

Respondent/wife

Procedural Posture

Divorce (divorce Suit No 1070 of 2012; Summons No 4196 of 2015) / Leave Application to File and Extract Certificate of Final Judgment (divorce) Out of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave under FJR r 96(3) was required and properly applied to allow extraction of Certificate of Final Judgment (Divorce) out of time
  2. 2 Proper interpretation of the two limbs of FJR r 96(3) (one year from interim judgment vs three months from last hearing of ancillary relief including appeals)
  3. 3 Whether s 123(1) Women’s Charter applies where a court has already made orders concerning the welfare of every child

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was granted. The court held that r 96(3) has two limbs and the second limb (three months from the last hearing of ancillary relief including appeals) applied; counsel had overlooked the second limb and the application was therefore out of time absent leave. Section 123(1) does not prevent finalisation where the court has already made orders concerning the welfare of every child because "arrangements" in s 123(1) refers to arrangements made by the parties, not court orders, and mere dissatisfaction with a court order does not indefinitely delay extraction of the certificate.

Court Disposition

Leave granted for the husband to file and extract the Certificate of Final Judgment (Divorce) notwithstanding expiration of time under FJR r 96(3).

Orders

  • Leave granted to the husband to file and extract the Certificate of Final Judgment (Divorce) out of time