AOO v AON: Appeal on Ancillary Order - Consent vs Default Judgment & Division of Matrimonial Assets
In AOO v AON, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal by the wife, AOO, against a High Court decision that restored an ancillary order made in the Family Court in favor of the husband, AON. The High Court had construed the ancillary order as a consent judgment. The Court of Appeal allowed the wife's appeal, setting aside the ancillary order, holding that the ancillary order was not a consent judgment because the wife did not participate in the proceedings and did not signify her consent to the order. The court emphasized that the reality of consent from both parties is of utmost importance and that the court cannot be a 'mere rubber stamp'.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding an ancillary order in a divorce case. The court determined the order was not a consent judgment and set it aside, emphasizing the need for genuine consent.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of Appeal | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of Appeal | Yes |
| V K Rajah | Justice of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Christopher Yap | Christopher Yap & Co |
| Wong Yoong Phin | Wong Yoong Phin & Co |
4. Facts
- The wife and husband were married on 3 February 1994 and have two children.
- In January 2009, the husband confronted the wife with evidence of her alleged infidelity.
- The husband engaged solicitors and produced a draft deed of settlement.
- The deed was signed by the wife on 12 February 2009 and executed by the husband on 16 February 2009.
- The divorce proceeded on an uncontested basis, with an interim judgment granted on 5 May 2009 in the wife's absence.
- The wife did not appear at the hearing for ancillary matters on 7 October 2009, and the ancillary order was made in her absence.
- The ancillary order tracked the provisions of the deed of settlement.
5. Formal Citations
- AOO v AON, Civil Appeal No 192 of 2010, [2011] SGCA 51
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Wife and husband were married | |
| Husband confronted wife with evidence of alleged infidelity | |
| Wife signed deed of settlement | |
| Husband executed deed of settlement | |
| Husband filed writ for divorce | |
| Interim judgment for divorce granted | |
| First ancillary matters pre-trial conference adjourned | |
| Ancillary order made | |
| Final judgment entered | |
| Wife filed application to set aside interim judgment, final judgment, and ancillary order | |
| Hearing of wife’s application | |
| Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the ancillary order |
7. Legal Issues
- Whether the ancillary order was a consent judgment
- Outcome: The court held that the ancillary order was not a consent judgment because the wife did not participate in the proceedings and did not signify her consent to the order.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2011] 2 SLR 926
- Whether the court had jurisdiction to make the ancillary order in the absence of the wife
- Outcome: The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the case and render judgment, but it should have heard the case on its merits and not treated the ancillary order as a default judgment.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Setting aside of a judgment pursuant to Order 35 rule 2 of the Rules of Court
- Outcome: The court determined that the ancillary order ought to have been set aside based on the evidence before the court, applying the applicable legal principles with respect to the setting aside of a judgment pursuant to Order 35 rule 2 of the Rules of Court.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2007] 3 SLR(R) 673
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of ancillary order
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Family Litigation
- Divorce
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AON v AOO | High Court | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 926 | Singapore | Cited as the decision from which the appeal arose, detailing the High Court's view that the ancillary order should be construed as a consent judgment. |
| Abdul Gaffer v Chua Kwang Yong | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 1056 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a court has the power to set aside regularly obtained orders where the party seeking to set aside the order has a real prospect of success if the matter was litigated. The court noted that the test has been restated since this case. |
| Alpine Bulk Transport Co Inc v Saudi Eagle Shipping Co Inc (The Saudi Eagle) | English Court | Yes | [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 221 | England | Cited as the English decision followed in Abdul Gaffer, regarding the threshold for setting aside regularly obtained orders. |
| Mercurine Pte Ltd v Canberra Development Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 907 | Singapore | Cited for restating the test for setting aside regular default judgments, establishing the 'prima facie defence' standard from Evans v Bartlam. |
| Evans v Bartlam | House of Lords | Yes | [1937] AC 437 | England | Cited as the source of the 'prima facie defence' test applied in Mercurine for setting aside regular default judgments. |
| Lee Min Jai v Chua Cheow Koon | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR(R) 548 | Singapore | Cited for the threshold for setting aside ancillary orders made by consent, emphasizing that the court should be alert to whether one party had taken an unfair advantage over the other. |
| Dean v Dean | English Court | Yes | [1978] 3 All ER 758 | England | Cited within the context of Lee Min Jai, stating that an agreement reached at arm's length with separate advice is prima facie evidence of reasonableness. |
| Siebe Gorman & Co Ltd v Pneupac Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1982] 1 WLR 185 | England | Cited to illustrate the different meanings of 'by consent,' either as a real contract or as 'the parties hereto not objecting.' |
| Chandless-Chandless v Nicholson | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1942] 2 KB 321 | England | Cited in Siebe Gorman & Co Ltd v Pneupac Ltd to illustrate the different meanings of 'by consent.' |
| Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 117 | Singapore | Cited as a related proceeding in the Court of Appeal. |
| Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 525 | Singapore | Cited as a related proceeding in the Court of Appeal. |
| Ernest Ferdinand de Lasala v Hannelore de Lasala | Privy Council | Yes | [1980] AC 546 | Hong Kong | Cited for the principle that financial arrangements agreed upon and made subject to a consent order derive their legal effect from the court order, not the agreement of the parties. |
| Tommey v Tommey | English High Court | Yes | [1983] Fam 15 | England | Cited to emphasize that a judge is not a 'mere rubber stamp' when asked to make a consent order and can make inquiries as necessary. |
| Livesey (formerly Jenkins) v Jenkins | House of Lords | Yes | [1985] 1 AC 424 | England | Cited to illustrate that a consent order can be set aside if there was a failure to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts. |
| TQ v TR | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 961 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that courts must scrutinize agreements relating to the custody of children and that such agreements are unenforceable unless they are in the best interests of the child. |
| Su Sh-Hsyu v Wee Yue Chew | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 673 | Singapore | Cited regarding the right to apply to set aside a judgment given in one's absence pursuant to Order 35 rule 2 of the Rules of Court. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
| O 1 r 2(2) of the Rules of Court |
| O 13 of the Rules of Court |
| O 35 r 2 of the Rules of Court |
| Women’s Charter (Matrimonial Proceedings) Rules (Cap 353, R 4, 2006 Rev Ed) |
| r 3(2) of the Matrimonial Proceedings Rules |
| r 3(1) of the Matrimonial Proceedings Rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Central Provident Fund Act, Chapter 36 | Singapore |
| Subordinate Courts Act, Chapter 321 | Singapore |
| Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 112 of the Act | Singapore |
| s 119 of the Act | Singapore |
| s 125(2) of the Act | Singapore |
| s 129 of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Ancillary order
- Consent judgment
- Default judgment
- Deed of settlement
- Matrimonial assets
- Full and frank disclosure
- Best interests of the child
- Postnuptial agreement
15.2 Keywords
- family law
- divorce
- ancillary matters
- consent judgment
- default judgment
- matrimonial assets
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Matrimonial Assets | 90 |
| Divorce | 90 |
| Family Law | 90 |
| Division of Assets | 90 |
| Maintenance | 70 |
| Child Custody | 60 |
| Postnuptial Agreement | 50 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
| Evidence | 20 |
| Estoppel | 20 |
| Affidavits | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Family Law
- Divorce
- Civil Procedure