TDL v TDK: Extension of Time for Appeal in Divorce Proceedings

In TDL v TDK, the Family Justice Courts of Singapore heard an application by TDL (the husband) for an extension of time to appeal against a District Judge's decision on ancillary matters in divorce proceedings with TDK (the wife). The court denied the extension, citing the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prejudice to the respondent. The court found that while the appeal was not hopeless, these factors outweighed the applicant's chances of success.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Family Justice Courts of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed; further extension of time to appeal denied.

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Application for extension of time to appeal ancillary orders in divorce. Extension denied due to delay, reasons for delay, and prejudice to respondent.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
TDLApplicantIndividualApplication for extension of time to appeal deniedLost
TDKRespondentIndividualApplication for extension of time to appeal deniedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Valerie TheanJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Dhanwant SinghS K Kumar Law Practice LLP
Anuradha s/o Krishan Chand SharmaWinchester Law LLC

4. Facts

  1. The applicant sought an extension of time to appeal ancillary orders in divorce proceedings.
  2. The order on ancillary matters was made on 15 July 2016.
  3. Time for filing a notice of appeal expired on 29 July 2016.
  4. The respondent obtained Final Judgment on 1 August 2016.
  5. The applicant did not comply with the order to transfer the Miltonia Property to the respondent.
  6. The respondent is living in rented premises while paying the mortgage and expenses for the Miltonia Property.
  7. The applicant did not comply with the Condition to execute the transfer of the Miltonia Property.

5. Formal Citations

  1. TDL v TDK, HCF/Originating Summons No 36 of 2016, [2017] SGHCF 20

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Order on ancillary matters made by District Judge.
Time for filing notice of appeal expired.
Final Judgment obtained by the respondent.
Applicant filed OSN 20/2016 for extension of time to appeal.
Court directed applicant to rectify error and file and serve OSN 20/2016 as amended.
Court informed parties that OSN 20/2016 had been struck out.
Applicant filed appeal against Unless Order.
Appeal dismissed.
Applicant filed OSN 36/2016 seeking leave to file a notice of appeal out of time.
Amended originating summons re-filed.
Respondent filed an application for the Miltonia Property to be transferred to her.
SUM 3981/2016 heard by the Judge.
Court granted applicant an extension of time, subject to the Condition.
Court granted a further extension of time.
Relevant transfer documents remained unsigned by the applicant.
Transfer documents sent to Ms Sharma.
Court decided not to grant any further extension.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Extension of Time to Appeal
    • Outcome: The court denied the extension of time to appeal.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Length of delay
      • Reasons for delay
      • Chances of appeal succeeding
      • Prejudice to the respondent
    • Related Cases:
      • [2008] 1 SLR(R) 757

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Extension of time to 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
Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and others and another suitCourt of AppealYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 757SingaporeCited for the four factors to be considered when granting an extension of time to appeal.
Werner Samuel Vuillemin v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp LtdUnknownYes[2017] 3 SLR 501SingaporeCited as a recent case that considered the four factors for granting an extension of time.
Aberdeen Asset Management Asia Ltd v Fraser & Neave LtdUnknownYes[2001] 3 SLR(R) 355SingaporeCited for the low threshold required to assess the merits of the appeal when considering an extension of time.
Falmac Ltd v Cheng Ji Lai Charlie and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2014] 4 SLR 202SingaporeCited for how the length of delay should be assessed.
AD v AECourt of AppealYes[2004] 2 SLR(R) 505SingaporeCited to show that a delay of 49 days is very substantial.
Sun Jin Engineering Pte Ltd v Hwang Jae WooCourt of AppealYes[2011] 2 SLR 196SingaporeCited for the principle of balancing the competing interests of the parties when deciding whether to extend the prescribed timeline.
Ratnam v CumarasamyPrivy CouncilYes[1965] 1 WLR 8UnknownCited for the principle that time limits set out in the rules must prima facie be obeyed.
Kunal Gobind Lalchandani v Konduri Prakash MurthyHigh CourtYes[2005] SGHC 94SingaporeCited for the principle that a mistake by a solicitor is insufficient reason to justify granting an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.
Denko-HLB Sdn Bhd v Fagerdala Singapore Pte LtdUnknownYes[2002] 3 SLR 357SingaporeCited for the principle that a mistake by a solicitor is insufficient reason to justify granting an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Family Justice Rules 2014 (S 813/2014)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Extension of time
  • Ancillary matters
  • Divorce proceedings
  • Miltonia Property
  • Prejudice
  • Finality

15.2 Keywords

  • Extension of time
  • Appeal
  • Divorce
  • Family Law
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Extension of Time90
Divorce90
Division of Property85
Family Law80
Civil Procedure75
Maintenance70
Appeal70
Matrimonial Proceedings70
Appellate Practice65
Women’s Charter60
Care and Control60
Costs50

16. Subjects

  • Family Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Appeals