URU v URV: Enforcing Family Court Orders via Committal Proceedings
In the Family Justice Courts of Singapore, URU (Appellant/Plaintiff) appealed against the District Judge's decision regarding the enforcement of a consent order against URV (Respondent/Defendant) in divorce proceedings. The key legal issue was whether court leave is required to endorse a penal notice on a court order copy served to the person sought to be committed. Tan Puay Boon JC allowed the appeal, holding that leave is not required for a party to endorse a copy of a court order with a penal notice under Rule 696(4) of the Family Justice Rules, and granted the appellant leave to commence committal proceedings.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Family Justice Courts of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed. The court held that leave is not required for a party to endorse a copy of a court order with a penal notice under Rule 696(4) of the Family Justice Rules, and granted the appellant leave to commence committal proceedings.
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding enforcing Family Justice Court orders through committal. The court held that leave is not required to endorse a penal notice.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tan Puay Boon | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Carrie Kaur Gill | Eversheds Harry Elias LLP |
| Clement Yap Ying Jie | Eversheds Harry Elias LLP |
4. Facts
- Appellant and respondent are parties in divorce proceedings.
- A consent order was entered into on 10 November 2017 to resolve outstanding issues.
- Clause (o) of the consent order required each party to transfer $7,700 to the child's account by 2 January 2018.
- The respondent did not comply with Clause (o) by 23 March 2018.
- The appellant sought to enforce the consent order by means of committal proceedings.
- The District Judge dismissed the application for leave to commence committal proceedings.
5. Formal Citations
- URU v URV, HCF/Registrar’s Appeal No 14 of 2018, [2018] SGHCF 22
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant and respondent entered into a consent order to resolve outstanding issues. | |
| Deadline for each party to transfer $7,700 as maintenance to the child's account. | |
| Copy of the consent order, endorsed with a penal notice, was served on the respondent. | |
| Appellant applied for leave to commence committal proceedings against the respondent. | |
| Application heard by the District Judge, who dismissed it. | |
| High Court heard the appeal. | |
| High Court heard the appeal. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Enforcement of Court Orders
- Outcome: The court held that leave is not required for a party to endorse a copy of a court order with a penal notice under Rule 696(4) of the Family Justice Rules.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Requirement of leave for endorsement of penal notice
- Related Cases:
- [2016] 3 SLR 1
- [2016] NICh 11
- [2002] All ER (D) 296
- [2016] HKCU 2135
8. Remedies Sought
- Committal Proceedings
9. Cause of Actions
- Enforcement of Consent Order
- Contempt of Court
10. Practice Areas
- Family Law
- Divorce
- Enforcement of Court Orders
- Committal Proceedings
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mok Kah Hong v Zheng Zhuan Yao | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited regarding the two stages to the committal of a non-complying party under the Family Justice Rules. |
| Deery v Deery and another | High Court | Yes | [2016] NICh 11 | Northern Ireland | Cited in support of the position that leave of court is not required for the endorsement of a penal notice on a court order. |
| Anglo-Eastern Trust Pte Ltd v Kermanshahchi | English High Court | Yes | [2002] All ER (D) 296 | England | Cited in support of the position that leave of court is not required for the endorsement of a penal notice on a court order. |
| LA v TWK | District Court | Yes | [2016] HKCU 2135 | Hong Kong | Cited in support of the position that leave of court is not required for the endorsement of a penal notice on a court order. |
| GM v GN | District Court | Yes | [2004] SGDC 284 | Singapore | Cited in support of the position that leave of court is required for the endorsement of a penal notice on an order of court. |
| Woo Keng Sheng v Gan Geok Kheng | District Court | Yes | [2005] SGDC 191 | Singapore | Cited in support of the position that leave of court is required for the endorsement of a penal notice on an order of court. |
| Loh Eng Leong and another v Lo Mu Sen & Sons Sdn Bhd and another | Malaysian Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 4 MLJ 284 | Malaysia | Cited in support of the position that leave of court is required for the endorsement of a penal notice on an order of court. |
| TDQ v TDR | Family Court | Yes | [2015] SGFC 72 | Singapore | Cited regarding whether a penal notice is part of a court order. |
| UNE v UNF | High Court (Family Division) | Yes | [2018] SGHCF 15 | Singapore | Cited regarding whether a penal notice may form part of a court order. |
| Sembcorp Marine Ltd v PPL Holdings Pte Ltd and another and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 193 | Singapore | Cited regarding statutory interpretation. |
| Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario | High Court | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 258 | Singapore | Cited regarding the inherent jurisdiction and inherent powers of the Singapore Courts. |
| Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man | High Court | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 117 | Singapore | Cited regarding the inherent jurisdiction and inherent powers of the Singapore Courts. |
| Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd v Mansource Interior Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 797 | Singapore | Cited regarding practice directions. |
| Tunas (Pte) Ltd v Mayer Investments Pte Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [1989] 1 SLR(R) 161 | Singapore | Cited regarding practice directions. |
| Robert Arnold Tuohy and others v Gary Bell (As Trustee in Bankruptcy of the Appellant | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | [2002] EWCA Civ 423 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the English courts’ approach to possession orders. |
| OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP and others v Burhan Uray alias Wong Ming Kiong) and others | High Court | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 60 | Singapore | Cited regarding parties seeking to have orders discharged, set aside or stayed. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules 690(1)(d) and 694 of the Family Justice Rules |
| Rules 696(2) and (3) of the Family Justice Rules |
| Rule 696(4) of the Family Justice Rules |
| Rule 759 of the Family Justice Rules |
| Rule 760 of the Family Justice Rules |
| Rule 958 of the Family Justice Rules |
| Rule 7 of the Family Justice Rules |
| O 45 r 7 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
| O 45 r 1(1) of the Rules of Court |
| O 52 rr 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Family Justice Rules (S 813/2014) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Penal Notice
- Committal Proceedings
- Consent Order
- Family Justice Rules
- Enforcement
- Leave of Court
- Process of Execution
15.2 Keywords
- Family Justice Courts
- Penal Notice
- Committal Proceedings
- Enforcement of Orders
- Singapore Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Family Law | 95 |
| Family Justice Rules | 90 |
| Contempt of Court | 60 |
| Civil Procedure | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Family Law
- Civil Procedure
- Enforcement of Court Orders
- Committal Proceedings