BUN v BUP: Striking Out Action, Joinder of Parties, and Division of Matrimonial Assets
In BUN v BUP, the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by the Defendant/Applicant, BUP (the Wife), to strike out an action commenced by the Plaintiffs/Respondents, BUN (the Husband) and BUO (the Son), concerning the determination of proprietary interests in two properties acquired during the marriage. The Wife sought a share of these properties in ancillary matters before the Family Courts following an interim judgment of divorce. The Husband and Son initiated the action to seek declarations regarding their beneficial ownership of the properties. The High Court dismissed the Wife's application to strike out the action.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court considered striking out an action related to proprietary interests in matrimonial assets, addressing joinder of parties and the Family Court's jurisdiction.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BUN | Plaintiff, Respondent | Individual | Application dismissed | Neutral | |
| BUO | Plaintiff, Respondent | Individual | Application dismissed | Neutral | |
| BUP | Defendant, Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | Yong Hong Kit Clement of Legal Aid Bureau Louis D’Souza of Legal Aid Bureau |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Justin Yeo | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Decruz Martin Francis | Shenton Law Practice LLC |
| Yong Hong Kit Clement | Legal Aid Bureau |
| Louis D’Souza | Legal Aid Bureau |
4. Facts
- The Husband and Wife obtained an Interim Judgment of divorce in February 2018.
- The ancillary matters dispute concerned two properties purchased during the marriage.
- The Properties were purchased in the joint names of the Husband and the Son.
- The Wife contended the Properties were matrimonial assets and sought a share under s 112 of the Women’s Charter.
- The Husband denied the Wife’s claims, asserting the Properties were for his children and the Son.
- The Family Courts stayed the ancillary matters proceedings to determine the proprietary interests in the Properties.
- The Husband and the Son commenced the Action to seek declarations regarding beneficial ownership of the Properties.
5. Formal Citations
- BUN and another v BUP, HC/S 791 of 2018, [2018] SGHCR 17
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Husband and Wife obtained an Interim Judgment of divorce | |
| Oral arguments heard by the court | |
| Defendant's Written Submissions | |
| Plaintiffs’ Further Written Submissions | |
| Defendant’s Further Written Submissions | |
| Counsel invited to address the court on O 15 r 16 of the Rules of Court | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Striking Out Action
- Outcome: The court declined to strike out the action.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- No reasonable cause of action
- Abuse of process
- Joinder of Parties
- Outcome: The court found no reason to strike out the action based on misjoinder of parties.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Misjoinder of parties
- Division of Matrimonial Assets
- Outcome: The court held that the action did not thwart the jurisdiction of the Family Courts.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Determination of beneficial interest
- Jurisdiction of Family Court
- Declaratory Relief
- Outcome: The court found that the requirements for declaratory relief were met.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Real interest in bringing the action
- Real controversy between the parties
- Violation of a right personal to the applicant
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that the Husband and the Son are the beneficial owners of the First Property
- Declaration that the Wife does not have any beneficial interest in the First Property
- Declaration that the Son is the beneficial owner of the Second Property
- Declaration that the Wife does not have any beneficial interest in the Second Property
- Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- Declaration of Beneficial Ownership
10. Practice Areas
- Family Law
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UDA v UDB and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 1015 | Singapore | The Court of Appeal held that where a third party seeks to claim a legal or beneficial interest in an alleged matrimonial asset, the matrimonial proceedings ought to be stayed pending the independent civil proceedings taken out to determine the property dispute involving the third party. |
| Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council | N/A | No | [1996] AC 669 | N/A | Cited for the principle that unless and until there is a separation of the legal and equitable estate, there can be no separate equitable title. |
| Latham Scott v Credit Suisse First Boston | N/A | No | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 30 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court's power to grant declaratory relief is discretionary, and where the court is of the view that the declaration will serve “no useful practical purpose”, it will not grant the declaration. |
| Ng Chee Weng v Lim Jit Ming Bryan | N/A | No | [2012] 1 SLR 457 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that striking out of a claim is “draconian” and should only be done “if it is patently clear that there is no reasonable cause of action on the face of the pleadings”. |
| Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 112 | Singapore | Explained the rule and the requirements for obtaining declaratory judgment. |
| Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers | N/A | No | [1978] AC 435 | N/A | Cited for the observation that declaratory relief is generally superfluous where a plaintiff has a subsisting cause of action. |
| Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 476 | Singapore | Explained that the Karaha Bodas test laid down three elements for establishing locus standi. |
| Meadows Indemnity Co Ltd v Insurance Corporation of Ireland plc and International Commercial Bank plc | N/A | No | [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 298 | N/A | Cited as an example of where the declaration sought is in relation to rights that the claiming party could not claim for itself. |
| Salijah bte Ab Latef v Mohd Irawan bin Abdullah Teo | N/A | No | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 80 | Singapore | Cited as an example of where the rights between the parties have already been resolved by a judgment of court and therefore the controversy had ended, subject only to the right of appeal. |
| Tan Yow Kon v Tan Swat Ping | N/A | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR(R) 881 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that O 15 r 6(1) of the Rules of Court seeks to “save rather than to destroy, to enable rather than to disable and to ensure that the right parties are before the court”. |
| UDA v UDB | N/A | Yes | [2018] 3 SLR 1433 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a declaration of beneficial interests in the Action does not thwart the jurisdiction of the Family Courts in determining a just and equitable division of matrimonial assets under s 112 of the Women’s Charter. |
| JAF v JAE | N/A | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 717 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a declaration of beneficial interests in the Action does not thwart the jurisdiction of the Family Courts in determining a just and equitable division of matrimonial assets under s 112 of the Women’s Charter. |
| Lau Siew Kim v Yeo Guan Chye Terence and another | N/A | Yes | [2008] SLR(R) 108 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a declaration of beneficial interests in the Action does not thwart the jurisdiction of the Family Courts in determining a just and equitable division of matrimonial assets under s 112 of the Women’s Charter. |
| Lock Yeng Fun v Chua Hock Chye | N/A | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 520 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a declaration of beneficial interests in the Action does not thwart the jurisdiction of the Family Courts in determining a just and equitable division of matrimonial assets under s 112 of the Women’s Charter. |
| Central Provident Fund Board v Lau Eng Mui | N/A | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 826 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a declaration of beneficial interests in the Action does not thwart the jurisdiction of the Family Courts in determining a just and equitable division of matrimonial assets under s 112 of the Women’s Charter. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 18 r 19(1)(a) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, Rev Ed 2014) |
| O 15 r 16 of the Rules of Court |
| O 15 rr 4(1) and 4(2) of the Rules of Court |
| O 15 r 4(1) of the Rules of Court |
| O 15 r 6(1) of the Rules of Court |
| O 15 r 6 of the Rules of Court |
| O 27 r 3 of the Rules of Court |
| O 14 of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 112 of the Women’s Charter | Singapore |
| s 59 of the Women’s Charter | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Matrimonial Assets
- Beneficial Interest
- Striking Out
- Joinder of Parties
- Declaratory Relief
- Proprietary Interest
- Ancillary Matters
- Interim Judgment
- Reasonable Cause of Action
15.2 Keywords
- matrimonial assets
- striking out
- joinder
- family law
- property rights
- declaratory judgment
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Matrimonial Assets | 80 |
| Division | 80 |
| Family Law | 75 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Striking out | 60 |
| Property Law | 60 |
| Joinder | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Family Law
- Property Law