IW v IX: Appeal for Child Custody - Principles for Granting Leave to Appeal

In IW v IX, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an application by IW for leave to appeal against the High Court's decision regarding the custody of a nine-year-old child. The High Court had reversed the District Court's decision, granting joint custody to both parents but care and control to the father, IX. The Court of Appeal, comprising Chao Hick Tin JA, Judith Prakash J, and Yong Pung How CJ, refused leave to appeal, holding that the applicant did not meet the criteria for granting leave as established in previous case law. The court clarified the principles for granting leave to appeal, emphasizing the need to demonstrate a prima facie case of error or a question of significant public importance.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Leave to appeal refused.

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding child custody. The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal, clarifying the principles for granting leave in Singapore.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
IWApplicantIndividualLeave to appeal refusedLost
Michael Hwang of Michael Hwang
IXRespondentIndividualAppeal upheldWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of AppealYes
Judith PrakashJudgeNo
Yong Pung HowChief JusticeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Michael HwangMichael Hwang
Bernice Loo Ming NeeAllen and Gledhill
Kee Lay LianRajah and Tann
Quentin LohRajah and Tann
Vivien TengRajah and Tann

4. Facts

  1. Wife and husband married in 1991 and have two daughters.
  2. Wife was posted to New York in March 2001.
  3. Husband and children joined wife in New York in April 2001.
  4. Wife indicated she wanted a divorce shortly after the husband arrived in New York.
  5. Husband returned to Singapore with the older daughter.
  6. Wife filed for divorce in Singapore on 19 October 2001.
  7. District judge granted custody of older daughter to husband and younger daughter to wife on 1 December 2004.
  8. Husband appealed the custody order regarding the younger child.
  9. High Court granted joint custody to both parents but care and control to the husband.

5. Formal Citations

  1. IW v IX, OM 24/2005, [2005] SGCA 48

6. Timeline

DateEvent
IW and IX married.
Wife posted to New York by employer.
Husband and children joined wife in New York.
Wife indicated she wanted a divorce.
Husband returned to Singapore with older daughter.
Wife filed for divorce in Singapore.
Decree nisi granted.
District judge granted custody of older daughter to husband and younger daughter to wife.
Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Principles for granting leave to appeal
    • Outcome: The court clarified that the test for granting leave to appeal is whether there is a prima facie case of error or a question of general principle or public importance.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Prima facie case of error
      • Question of general principle
      • Question of importance to public advantage
    • Related Cases:
      • [1997] 4 All ER 840
      • [1989] SLR 607
      • [1997] 3 SLR 489
  2. Child Custody
    • Outcome: The court reiterated that the paramount consideration in custody cases is the welfare of the child, taking into account various factors.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Welfare of the child
      • Maintaining status quo
      • Preservation of mother-child bond
      • Siblings should be brought up together
    • Related Cases:
      • [1987] SLR 549

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Leave to appeal to the Court 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 NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Smith v Cosworth Casting Processes LtdEnglish Court of AppealYes[1997] 4 All ER 840England and WalesCited for the principles on which leave to appeal should be granted.
Anthony s/o Savarimiuthu v Soh Chuan TinHigh CourtYes[1989] SLR 607SingaporeCited for the circumstances for granting leave to appeal.
Wong Yin v Wong MookUnknownYes[1948] 1 MLJ 164MalaysiaCited in Anthony s/o Savarimiuthu v Soh Chuan Tin regarding the circumstances for granting leave to appeal.
Pang Hon Chin v Nahar SinghUnknownYes[1986] 2 MLJ 145MalaysiaCited in Anthony s/o Savarimiuthu v Soh Chuan Tin regarding the circumstances for granting leave to appeal.
Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang HongCourt of AppealYes[1997] 3 SLR 489SingaporeCited for the guidelines on granting leave to appeal.
Pandian Marimuthu v Guan Leong Construction Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2001] 3 SLR 400SingaporeCited for the test of whether the appeal is likely to succeed and whether, if leave is not granted, there is a likelihood of substantial injustice.
Abdul Rahman bin Shariff v Abdul Salim bin SyedHigh CourtYes[1999] 4 SLR 716SingaporeCited for clarification that the test of prima facie case of error would not be satisfied by the assertion that the judge had reached the wrong conclusion on the evidence.
Lam Seng Hang Co Pte Ltd v The Insurance Corporation of Singapore LtdHigh CourtYes[2001] 2 SLR 179SingaporeCited for applying the guidelines laid down in Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong.
Goh Kim Heong v AT & J Co Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2001] 4 SLR 262SingaporeCited for applying the guidelines laid down in Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong.
Essar Steel Ltd v Bayerische LandesbankHigh CourtYes[2004] 3 SLR 25SingaporeCited for applying the guidelines laid down in Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong.
Tan Siew Kee v Chua Ah BoeyHigh CourtYes[1987] SLR 549SingaporeCited for the definition of 'welfare' in the context of child custody.
Alliance & Leicester Plc v Paul Robinson & CoUnknownYes[2000] CP Rep 3England and WalesCited to show that in England the object of the leave mechanism was to filter out appeals which had no hope of success.
Ex p. Gilchrist, Re ArmstrongQueen's Bench DivisionYes[1886] 17 Q.B.D. 521England and WalesCited in Singapore Civil Procedure (Sweet & Maxwell Asia, 2003 Ed) regarding the circumstances for granting leave to appeal.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 28A(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 28A(2)(b) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore
Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 34 of the Supreme Court of Judicature ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Leave to appeal
  • Custody
  • Welfare of the child
  • Prima facie case of error
  • General principle
  • Public advantage
  • Realistic prospect of success

15.2 Keywords

  • Leave to appeal
  • Child custody
  • Family law
  • Singapore
  • Court of Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Child Custody95
Family Law90
Matrimonial Law70
Child Support60
Appeal40
Civil Practice30

16. Subjects

  • Family Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Appeals