fc_judgments: 75
Data source: lawnet.sg/lawnet/web/lawnet/free-resources · About: hueyy/lacuna-db
This data as json
| _id | _item_id | tags | date | court | case-number | title | citation | url | counsel | timestamp | coram | html | _commit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 75 | 232c0986250e3c2cb5b46f2324886c7083075a4f | [
"Family Law \u2013 Procedure",
"Family Law \u2013 Procedure \u2013 Leave to make an interim judgment final"
] |
2024-08-28 | Family Court | Divorce No 1730 of 2022 (Summons No 2463 of 2024) | XCN v XCO | [2024] SGFC 76 | https://www.lawnet.sg:443/lawnet/web/lawnet/free-resources?p_p_id=freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet&p_p_lifecycle=1&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&_freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet_action=openContentPage&_freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet_docId=%2FJudgment%2F32087-SSP.xml | [
"The plaintiff absent and unrepresented",
"Dharmambal Shanti Jayaram (Dharma Law LLC) for the defendant"
] |
2024-09-11T16:00:00Z[GMT] | Soh Kian Peng | <root><head><title>XCN v XCO</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> XCN <em>v</em> XCO </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/32087-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 76</a></span></h2><table id="info-table"><tbody><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Case Number</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">Divorce No 1730 of 2022 (Summons No 2463 of 2024)</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Decision Date</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">28 August 2024</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Tribunal/Court</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">Family Court</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Coram</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> Soh Kian Peng </td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Counsel Name(s)</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> The plaintiff absent and unrepresented; Dharmambal Shanti Jayaram (Dharma Law LLC) for the defendant </td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Parties</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> XCN — XCO </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Procedure</span></p> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Procedure</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Leave to make an interim judgment final</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">28 August 2024</p></td><td><p class="Judg-Date-Reserved"></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p> <p class="Judg-Author"> Assistant Registrar Soh Kian Peng:</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1 These are my written grounds in respect of SUM 2463 of 2024 (“SUM 2463”) which was the Defendant’s application for leave to make final the interim judgment pursuant to Rule 96(6) of the Family Justice Rules 2014. That Rule states:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(6) A spouse may make an application to make final an interim judgment pronounced against him —</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(a) without leave, if no application is made under paragraph (1) within the time specified in paragraph (3)(b); or</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(b) with leave, in any other case.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 Interim judgment was granted on 28 March 2023. The ancillary matters were heard on 19 June 2024 and orders were made on 18 July 2024. The court’s orders in relation to the ancillary matters were extracted on 20 July 2024 <em>vide</em> ORC 3202/2024.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 The Defendant’s lawyers attempted to make the interim judgment final but were directed to seek the leave of court to do so. This is because the interim judgment had been granted based on the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 SUM 2463 came up before me for hearing. At the hearing, I had asked counsel for the Defendant, Ms Dharmambal Jayaram (“Ms Jayaram”) if Rule 96(6) stipulated that the leave of court to make the interim judgment final could only be sought after the time period for doing so as set out in the Rules (see Rule 96(1) and Rule 96(3)) had expired.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 Ms Jayaram argued that this should not be the case. This would allow the Plaintiff to weaponise the rules of procedure by refusing to make the interim judgment final. If the interim judgment was not made final, the Defendant could not move on with her life – she could not remarry, and the money that she was entitled to under ORC 3202 could not be paid out.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 I agreed with Ms Jayaram’s argument. This was an appropriate case in which leave should be granted to the Defendant to make the interim judgment final. The Plaintiff had not participated in the previous hearings. He was absent at the hearing of the Defendant’s application for discovery in SUM 3324.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span> Further, despite being notified of the hearing dates, the Plaintiff did not participate in the subsequent case conferences,<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span> or the hearing of the ancillary matter.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_3" id="Ftn_3_1"><sup>[note: 3]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 The Plaintiff’s conduct suggests that he had decided to not participate in the proceedings. Given this, it was equally likely that he would not take action to make final the interim judgment granted on his Statement of Claim. The result of such inaction would result in the Wife being unable to move on. This was clearly an untenable situation that could not be countenanced. I therefore granted the Defendant leave to make the interim judgment final.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_1_1" id="Ftn_1">[note: 1]</a></sup>This summons was heard on 23 November 2023 and orders were made.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>The Plaintiff was absent from the Case Conferences held on 3 January 2024, 14 February 2024, 27 March 2024, and 8 of May 2024.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>The Plaintiff was absent from the hearing on 19 June 2024 and 18 July 2024.</p></div></content></root> | 1800 |
Links from other tables
- 1 row from _item in fc_judgments_version