fc_judgments: 91
Data source: lawnet.sg/lawnet/web/lawnet/free-resources
This data as json
| _id | _item_id | tags | date | court | case-number | title | citation | url | counsel | timestamp | coram | html | _commit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 91 | 81555c335b789600f5285510efbc6a649fd7dc84 | [
"Family Law \u2013 Procedure \u2013 Amendment of Pleadings"
] |
2024-10-04 | Family Court | Divorce No 638 of 2024 (Summons No 2274 of 2024) | XDP v XDQ | [2024] SGFC 89 | 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%2F32313-SSP.xml | [
"Pang Khin Wee (I.R.B Law LLP) for the plaintiff",
"K. Jayakumar Naidu (Jay Law Corporation) for the defendant."
] |
2024-10-17T16:00:00Z[GMT] | Soh Kian Peng | <root><head><title>XDP v XDQ</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> XDP <em>v</em> XDQ </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/32313-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 89</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 638 of 2024 (Summons No 2274 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">04 October 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"> Pang Khin Wee (I.R.B Law LLP) for the plaintiff; K. Jayakumar Naidu (Jay Law Corporation) 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"> XDP — XDQ </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Procedure</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Amendment of Pleadings</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">4 October 2024</p></td><td><p class="Judg-Date-Reserved">Judgment 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 SUM 2274/2024 (“SUM 2274”) was the Wife’s application to amend her Defence. I heard the application on 30 September 2024 and reserved judgment. This is my decision.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 It was the Husband who filed for divorce on 9 February 2024. According to the Statement of Particulars (“SOP”), parties were married on 4 August 2019 in India. Both the Husband and the Wife are Indian citizens.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 The Husband has been resident in Singapore since 2019 when he accepted an appointment as an Assistant Professor at one of the local universities (“X”). The Wife remained in India to complete her doctoral degree.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 The COVID-19 pandemic meant that both the Husband and Wife were kept apart, though they remained in touch via virtual means.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 Parties were reunited after travel restrictions had been lifted. They had a good relationship during this time. They went on many trips together. The SOP states that the Husband brought the Wife on numerous trips to Europe in 2022 and 2023.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 This was not to last. Cracks in the relationship began to form when the Wife began to verbally attack the Husband. They quarrelled over money. The Wife accused the Husband of ruining her career.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 After considering the state of their relationship, parties agreed to separate, and the Wife agreed to move back to India.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 This did not happen. The Wife returned to Singapore. The SOP states that she began a scorched earth campaign – this included sending complaint letters to the Dean of the local university where the Husband was employed.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 This led to the Husband filing for divorce. The Wife filed her Defence thereafter.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span> At this time, she was unrepresented. On the 10<sup>th</sup> of May 2024, she appointed counsel: Mr K Jayakumar Naidu (“Mr Jayakumar”) of Jay Law Corporation.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 Mr Jayakumar subsequently took out SUM 2274 to amend the Wife’s Defence. The purpose of this application was to tidy up the Defence. Mr Jayakumar had formatted the Wife’s Defence and tidied it up as best he could. In doing so, he separated the paragraphs which formed the Wife’s Defence, and the paragraphs which formed her Counterclaim.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 Counsel for the Husband, Mr Pang Khin Wee (“Mr Pang”) of IRB Law explained that the Husband only had a single objection to the proposed amendment which was the inclusion of an allegation that the Husband had used research grant money to pay for the trips to Europe (see above at [5]).<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 Mr Pang urged me to consider Rule 422(1) of the Family Justice Rules 2014 (“FJR 2014”), which states that the court may at any stage of the proceedings allow any party to amend their pleading, in light of the applicable principles for striking out pleadings which are instantiated in Rule 405 of the FJR 2014. According to Mr Pang, Rule 405 demonstrates that pleadings should not contain scandalous, frivolous or vexatious matters. Given that the proposed amendment contains scandalous, frivolous or vexatious matters, it should not be allowed.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 There is much force to the proposition that the court will not allow amendments to pleadings if the proposed amendments contain matters that are scandalous, frivolous or vexatious (to use the language of Rule 405 of the FJR 2014). After all, amendments are generally allowed for “the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties to any proceedings or of correcting any defect or error in any proceedings”: Chen Siyuan, Eunice Chua, Lionel Leo, <em>Family Procedure in Singapore</em> (LexisNexis, 2018) (“Family Procedure in Singapore”) at [422.02] citing <em>The “Virginia Rhea</em>” [1983 – 1984] SLR(R) 639 at [5] citing with approval <em>GL Baker Ltd v Medway Building & Supplies Ltd</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/English/5141-E-M.xml')">[1958] 1 WLR 1216</a> at 1231.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 What I have said above, however, would likely only be in issue where the proposed amendment seeks to introduce new facts into the pleadings. In the present case, however, the line which the Husband took offence with was already contained in the original Defence which the Wife had filed. This was what the Wife had stated:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">“My husband, plaintiff took me different places in Europe, using research Grant’s money”.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 This was the proposed amendment:<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_3" id="Ftn_3_1"><sup>[note: 3]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">The Plaintiff had brought the Defendant to the various countries mentioned in the SOP with the money the Plaintiff was given as a research grant by [X], the school he was employed by.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 There is, in substance, no real difference between the proposed amendment, and what was contained in the original Defence. The only changes are, as Mr Jayakumar explained, purely cosmetic.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 Therefore, even if I am minded to accept Mr Pang’s argument (which, for the avoidance of doubt, I do not) – that the proposed amendment should be rejected, the allegation that the Husband had used money from the research grant to bring the Wife on trips would still remain, warts and all.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 In the circumstances, I will therefore allow the Wife’s application to amend her Defence. The amendments correct a defect in the Wife’s Defence, namely that she had not separated matters that formed part of her Defence, and matters that formed part of her Counterclaim.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19 I shall hear parties on costs. It remains for me to thank both Mr Pang and Mr Jayakumar for their assistance.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_1_1" id="Ftn_1">[note: 1]</a></sup>The Wife’s Defence was filed on 28 March 2024.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>Husband’s Skeletal Submissions at para 7.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>Wife’s Supplementary Affidavit dated 14 August 2024.</p></div></content></root> | 1821 |
Links from other tables
- 1 row from _item in fc_judgments_version