AD v AE: Extension of Time to Serve Notice of Appeal in Child Custody Case
In AD v AE, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the High Court's decision to grant AE, the wife, an extension of time to serve a notice of appeal against a district court order concerning the custody of her son, C, to AD, the husband. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the ordinary principles for extending time apply, even in cases involving child custody, and that the High Court judge had erred in principle by prioritizing the child's welfare over compliance with procedural rules. The court emphasized the importance of finality and stability in custody matters.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding extension of time to serve a notice of appeal in a child custody case. The court held that the standard rules for extending time apply.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Nicholas Cheong | Lim Soo Peng and Co |
| David Rasif | David Rasif and Partners |
4. Facts
- The husband petitioned for divorce on the ground of the wife’s adultery.
- A decree nisi dissolving the marriage was granted.
- The parties disagreed on the custody of their three children.
- DNA tests revealed the husband was not the biological father of the two oldest daughters.
- The district judge granted custody of the son to the father and custody of the daughters to the mother.
- The wife issued a notice of appeal against the custody order but served it late.
- The High Court granted an extension of time to serve the notice of appeal.
5. Formal Citations
- AD v AE, CA 118/2003, [2004] SGCA 15
- Unknown, , [2003] SGHC 258
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Parties married | |
| Husband petitioned for divorce | |
| Decree nisi dissolving the marriage was granted | |
| District judge made custody orders | |
| Wife issued a notice of appeal | |
| Notice of appeal served on husband's solicitors | |
| Wife applied for an extension of time to serve the notice of appeal | |
| Appeal allowed |
7. Legal Issues
- Extension of Time to Serve Notice of Appeal
- Outcome: The court held that the ordinary principles for extending time apply, even in cases involving child custody, and that the High Court judge had erred in principle.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Length of delay
- Reason for delay
- Chances of appeal succeeding
- Degree of prejudice
- Related Cases:
- [1999] 3 SLR 239
- [2000] 4 SLR 46
- [2002] 3 SLR 357
- [1986] SLR 484
- [1991] SLR 212
- [2001] 4 SLR 441
- [1992] 1 SLR 1
- Child Custody
- Outcome: The court reiterated that the paramount consideration in determining custody is the welfare of the child.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Extension of time to serve notice of appeal
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Family Litigation
- Appellate Practice
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stansfield Business International Pte Ltd v Vithya Sri Sumathis | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR 239 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an application to extend time to serve a notice of appeal filed within time should be treated on the same basis as an application to extend time to file a notice of appeal out of time. |
| Nomura Regionalisation Venture Fund Ltd v Ethical Investments Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 4 SLR 46 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an application to extend time to serve a notice of appeal filed within time should be treated on the same basis as an application to extend time to file a notice of appeal out of time and for the four factors to be considered when determining whether an extension of time should be granted. |
| Denko-HLB Sdn Bhd v Fagerdala Singapore Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 3 SLR 357 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an application to extend time to serve a notice of appeal filed within time should be treated on the same basis as an application to extend time to file a notice of appeal out of time and for the court's observation on the reason for delay. |
| Hau Khee Wee v Chua Kian Tong | Unknown | Yes | [1986] SLR 484 | Singapore | Cited for the four factors to be considered when determining whether an extension of time should be granted. |
| Pearson v Chen Chien Wen Edwin | Unknown | Yes | [1991] SLR 212 | Singapore | Cited for the four factors to be considered when determining whether an extension of time should be granted. |
| Aberdeen Asset Management Asia Ltd v Fraser & Neave Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 4 SLR 441 | Singapore | Cited for the four factors to be considered when determining whether an extension of time should be granted and the explanation of 'prejudice'. |
| Vettath v Vettath | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for applying the four-factor test in an application to extend time to file and serve a notice of appeal against orders relating to ancillary matters in a divorce proceeding, including custody and access. |
| The Vishva Apurva | Unknown | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 175 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court should not substitute its own decision for that of the judge below unless the judge had applied the wrong principle, or that he had taken into account matters which he ought not to have done, or failed to take into account matters which he ought to have done, or that the decision is plainly wrong. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| O 55C r 1(4) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 125 of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 3 of the Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Order 3 r 4 of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Extension of time
- Notice of appeal
- Child custody
- Welfare of the child
- Discretionary power
- Rules of Court
- Service of notice
- Delay
- Prejudice
15.2 Keywords
- Extension of time
- Notice of appeal
- Child custody
- Singapore
- Family law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Child Custody | 90 |
| Family Law | 80 |
| Appeal | 70 |
| Civil Procedure | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Family Law
- Child Custody
- Appeals