Teh Siew Hua v Tan Kim Chiong: Variation of Decree Nisi and Limitation Act in Matrimonial Asset Division
In Teh Siew Hua v Tan Kim Chiong, the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by Mdm Teh Siew Hua to vary a Decree Nisi granted in 1992, ordering Mr Tan Kim Chiong to transfer his interest in the matrimonial property. The Respondent challenged the application, citing lack of knowledge of the original order. Justice Steven Chong granted the Petitioner's application, varying the Decree Nisi to include orders compelling the Respondent to transfer the property, considering arguments related to the Limitation Act and potential delays.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Petitioner's application granted; Decree Nisi varied to include orders for property transfer.
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application to vary a Decree Nisi for transfer of matrimonial property. The court considered the Limitation Act and granted the application.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teh Siew Hua | Petitioner | Individual | Application Granted | Won | Lim Hui Min of Legal Aid Bureau |
| Tan Kim Chiong | Respondent | Individual | Application Denied | Lost | Tan Kim Chiong of Independent Practitioner |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Steven Chong | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lim Hui Min | Legal Aid Bureau |
| Tan Kim Chiong | Independent Practitioner |
4. Facts
- The Petitioner and Respondent married on 4 January 1965.
- A Decree Nisi was granted on 30 January 1992, ordering the Respondent to transfer his interest in the matrimonial property to the Petitioner.
- The Decree Nisi was made absolute on 26 May 1992.
- The Respondent did not transfer his interest in the matrimonial property to the Petitioner.
- The Petitioner did not take steps to compel the transfer until November 2009.
- The Respondent refused to comply and asked for the property to be sold and the proceeds divided equally.
- The Petitioner applied to vary the Decree Nisi to include orders compelling the Respondent to transfer the property.
5. Formal Citations
- Teh Siew Hua v Tan Kim Chiong, Divorce Petition No 2178 of 1991; (Summons No 600037 of 2010), [2010] SGHC 172
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Marriage solemnised between the Petitioner and the Respondent. | |
| Decree Nisi granted by K S Rajah JC, ordering the Respondent to transfer his interest in the matrimonial property to the Petitioner. | |
| Decree Nisi made absolute. | |
| Petitioner requested that the Respondent transfer his interest in the matrimonial property. | |
| Court granted the Petitioner’s application to vary the Decree Nisi. |
7. Legal Issues
- Variation of Decree Nisi
- Outcome: The court allowed the variation of the Decree Nisi to include orders compelling the Respondent to transfer the property.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Enforcement of property transfer order
- Refusal to comply with court order
- Applicability of Limitation Act
- Outcome: The court held that the application was not a 'fresh action' and therefore not time-barred under s 6(3) of the Limitation Act. The court also held that s 9(1) of the Limitation Act was not triggered as there was no adverse possession.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Time bar on enforcement of judgment
- Fresh action on judgment
- Adverse possession
- Acquiescence and Laches
- Outcome: The court held that the application was not barred by acquiescence or laches because the Petitioner was seeking a statutory remedy, the Women's Charter expressly contemplates the power may be exercised at any time, and no prejudice was caused to the Respondent.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Delay in enforcing order
- Prejudice to the defendant
8. Remedies Sought
- Order for Respondent to Transfer Property
- Empowerment of Registrar to Sign Transfer Documents
9. Cause of Actions
- Application to Vary Decree Nisi
- Enforcement of Court Order
10. Practice Areas
- Divorce
- Family Litigation
- Property Transfer
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee Kok Yong v Lee Guek Hua (alias Li Yuehua) | High Court | Yes | [2007] SGHC 26 | Singapore | Approved the suggestion that an order for the division of matrimonial assets is a “one-off order” and as such, does not allow for variation. |
| Nalini d/o Ramachandran v Saseedaran Nair s/o Krishnan | High Court | Yes | [2010] SGHC 98 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court can vary an order for division of matrimonial assets if it is unworkable or did not provide for a particular situation or contingency. |
| Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace Inc (trading as Caesars Palace) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 1129 | Singapore | Cited as authority on the interpretation of s 6(1)(a) and 6(3) of the Limitation Act, tracing its origins to the UK Limitation Act 1939. |
| Berliner Industriebank Aktiengesellschaft v Jost | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1971] 1 QB 278 | England and Wales | Interpreted s 2(4) of the Limitation Act 1939 as concerning the substantive right to bring a fresh action on a judgment, not the procedural right of execution. |
| W T Lamb & Sons v Rider | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1948] 2 KB 331 | England and Wales | Established that s 2(4) of the Limitation Act 1939 deals only with the substantive right to sue for and obtain a judgment, while RSC Ord 42 concerns the procedural machinery for enforcing a judgment. |
| Lowsley v Forbes (trading as L E Design Services) | House of Lords | Yes | [1999] 1 AC 329 | England and Wales | Confirmed that 'Action' in s 24(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 means a fresh action and does not include proceedings by way of execution. |
| Ridgeway Motors (Isleworth) Ltd v ALTS Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 1 WLR 2871 | England and Wales | Reiterated the special meaning of 'an action upon a judgment' as a 'fresh action' brought upon a judgment to obtain a second judgment. |
| Tan Kim Seng v Ibrahim Victor Adam | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 1 SLR(R) 181 | Singapore | Commented on s 6(3) of the Limitation Act, distinguishing between 'execution' and 'an action upon any judgment'. |
| Desert Palace Inc (trading as Caesars Palace) v Poh Soon Kiat | High Court | Yes | [2009] 1 SLR(R) 71 | Singapore | Endorsed the English judgments on the interpretation of s 6(3) of the Limitation Act. |
| Pritchett v English and Colonial Syndicate | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1899] 2 QB 428 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that an action on a judgment will be dismissed as an abuse of process if the ordinary process of execution was available. |
| E D & F Man (Sugar) Ltd v Haryanto | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] Times LR 491 | England and Wales | Cited as an example where a fresh action on a judgment was allowed because execution was unavailable due to the defendant evading payments. |
| Bennett v The Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] EWCA Civ 988 | England and Wales | Cited as an example where a new action was commenced to preserve rights to take bankruptcy proceedings pending an appeal. |
| Kuwait Oil Tanker Company SAK v Al Bader | High Court | Yes | [2008] EWHC 2432 (Comm) | England and Wales | Cited as an example where a fresh action was instituted out of caution due to concerns about recovering the judgment debt in another jurisdiction. |
| Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran | Chancery Division | Yes | [1990] 1 Ch 623 | England and Wales | Cited for the position that s 9 of the Limitation Act is concerned with an action by a person with legal title to the land against an adverse possessor. |
| The Lindsay Petroleum Company v Prosper Armstrong Hurd, Abram Farewell, and John Kemp | Privy Council | Yes | (1874) LR 5 PC 221 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the operation of the defences of acquiescence and laches is generally contingent on the defendant being unjustly prejudiced by the plaintiff’s dilatoriness. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 46, r 2(1)(a) |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 46, r 1 |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 18, r 8(1)(a) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) s 112(4) | Singapore |
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) s 6(3) | Singapore |
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) s 9(1) | Singapore |
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) s 10(1) | Singapore |
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) s 15 | Singapore |
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) s 32 | Singapore |
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) s 4 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Decree Nisi
- Matrimonial Property
- Limitation Act
- Variation of Order
- Enforcement of Judgment
- Acquiescence
- Laches
15.2 Keywords
- divorce
- matrimonial property
- decree nisi
- limitation act
- variation
- enforcement
- family law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Matrimonial Assets | 90 |
| Family Law | 90 |
| Divorce | 90 |
| Limitation | 70 |
| Civil Procedure | 50 |
| Property Law | 40 |
| Measure of Damages | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Family Law
- Divorce
- Property Division
- Civil Procedure
- Limitation of Actions