CDV v CDW: Appeal on Variation of Consent Order for Matrimonial Asset Division under Women's Charter
In CDV v CDW, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the variation of a consent order concerning the division of matrimonial assets, specifically the matrimonial home. The husband, CDV, sought to vary the order due to financial difficulties, relying on Section 112(4) of the Women's Charter. The court, comprising Steven Chong JA, Belinda Ang Saw Ean J, and Quentin Loh J, allowed the wife's, CDW, appeal, holding that the statutory provision did not apply retrospectively to the consent order made under the previous Section 106 of the Women's Charter. The court also found that even if the provision applied, there were no exceptional reasons to justify the variation.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding the variation of a consent order for division of matrimonial assets. The court held that the new statutory provision does not apply.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Steven Chong | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | No |
| Quentin Loh | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Seenivasan Lalita | Virginia Quek Lalita & Partners |
| Liaw Jin Poh | Tan Lee & Choo |
4. Facts
- Husband and Wife married on 12 August 1973 and divorced with a consent order on 24 March 1994.
- The consent order included maintenance payments to the Wife and exclusive occupation of the Matrimonial Home during her lifetime.
- The Husband remarried and claimed financial difficulties since 2015, accumulating debts.
- The Husband applied to vary the consent order to sell the Matrimonial Home due to potential bankruptcy.
- The Wife opposed the variation, asserting a 'life interest' in the Matrimonial Home.
- The High Court initially granted the Husband's application, but the Wife appealed.
- The Husband has arrears in respect of his HDB monthly instalments.
5. Formal Citations
- CDV v CDW, Civil Appeal No 4 of 2020, [2020] SGCA 100
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Husband and Wife married | |
| Matrimonial Home purchased | |
| Divorce Petition filed | |
| Consent Order recorded | |
| Decree absolute granted | |
| Husband purchased HDB Flat | |
| Husband began experiencing financial difficulties | |
| OCBC served statutory demand on Husband | |
| Husband and Present Wife appealed against compulsory acquisition | |
| Husband filed application to vary Consent Order | |
| First hearing before the Judge | |
| Husband wrote to OCBC | |
| OCBC's solicitors responded to Husband | |
| Judge granted Husband’s application | |
| OCBC served a second statutory demand on the Husband | |
| Judge granted a stay of execution | |
| Hearing of the appeal | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Jurisdiction to Vary Consent Order
- Outcome: The court held that Section 112(4) of the Women's Charter does not apply retrospectively to orders made under Section 106 of the Women's Charter (1985 Edition).
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Retrospective application of statutory provisions
- Interpretation of statutory provisions
- Related Cases:
- [2013] 1 SLR 924
- [2015] 2 SLR 420
- [1987] SLR(R) 702
- Unworkability of Consent Order
- Outcome: The court held that even if Section 112(4) applied, there were no exceptional reasons to justify the variation of the consent order based on unworkability.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Radical change in circumstances
- Self-induced unworkability
- Related Cases:
- [2013] 1 SLR 924
8. Remedies Sought
- Variation of Consent Order
- Sale of Matrimonial Home
9. Cause of Actions
- Application to vary a consent order
10. Practice Areas
- Divorce
- Appeals
- Matrimonial Assets Division
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AYM v AYL | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 924 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of unworkability in varying consent orders and the need for exceptional reasons. |
| CDV v CDW | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 61 | Singapore | The High Court decision that was being appealed in the current judgment. |
| ABU v Comptroller of Income Tax | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 420 | Singapore | Cited for the principles governing the retrospective application of legislation. |
| L’Office Chefifien Des Phosphates v Yamashita-Shinnihon Steamship Co Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1994] 1 AC 486 | United Kingdom | Endorsed Lord Mustill’s formulation of the presumption against retrospectivity. |
| UYP v UYQ | High Court | Yes | [2020] 3 SLR 683 | Singapore | Cited for a helpful summary of the historical context leading to the repeal of Section 106 and the introduction of Section 112 of the Women's Charter. |
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that Parliament shuns tautology and does not legislate in vain. |
| Sivakolunthu Kumarasamy v Shanmugam Nagaiah and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1987] SLR(R) 702 | Singapore | Cited for the settled legal position that the court had no power to vary an order for the division of matrimonial assets prior to the introduction of Section 112(4). |
| Chiang Shirley v Chiang Dong Pheng | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 283 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that consent orders can only be set aside in very limited situations such as fraud. |
| Kupusamy s/o Jaganathan v Kannaiya Kala Devi | High Court | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR(R) 895 | Singapore | Discussed as a case where the court appeared to have varied a consent order, but distinguished because the order was no longer capable of being performed. |
| Chia Chew Gek v Tan Boon Hiang and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR(R) 383 | Singapore | Discussed as a case where the court varied a consent order, but distinguished because the order was conditional and had completely failed. |
| Teh Siew Hua v Tan Kim Chiong | High Court | Yes | [2010] 4 SLR 123 | Singapore | Discussed as a case where the High Court appeared to have applied Section 112(4) to vary an order, but distinguished because the application was actually to enforce the order. |
| John Chin Ah Chai alias John Chin (formerly known as Chin Ah Chai) v Hee Ee Chu and Another | High Court | Yes | [1994] SGHC 16 | Singapore | Cited for explaining the prevailing legal position that an order for the division of matrimonial assets is final and cannot be varied, subject only to appeal. |
| Tan Chwee Chye and others v P V R M Kulandayan Chettiar | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 229 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a co-owner can commit a legal wrong against another co-owner by excluding the latter from exercising his or her right to occupation. |
| TYA v TYB | High Court | Yes | [2018] 3 SLR 1170 | Singapore | Cited for explaining the distinction between continuing orders and executory orders. |
| Barder v Caluori | House of Lords | Yes | [1988] AC 20 | United Kingdom | Cited in TYA v TYB for the definition of executory order. |
| Seah Kim Seng v Yick Sui Ping | High Court | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 731 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a change in economic conditions or circumstances cannot be a sufficient basis of unworkability. |
| Ooi Chhooi Ngoh Bibiana v Chee Yoh Chuang (care of RSM Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd, as joint and several private trustees in bankruptcy of the bankruptcy estate of Freddie Koh Sin Chong, a bankrupt) and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 83 | Singapore | Cited for the principles applicable when the court is considering whether to direct a sale of land under Section 18(2) read with paragraph 2 of the First Schedule of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. |
| Chan Lung Kien v Chan Shwe Ching | High Court | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 208 | Singapore | Cited for the question of whether a judgment creditor has the right to apply for a sale of the property under Section 18(2) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. |
| UNC v UND | Family Court | Yes | [2018] SGFC 62 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a variation will be disallowed if the adverse change in circumstances is self-induced. |
| VCF v VCG | Family Court | Yes | [2019] SGFC 120 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a variation will be disallowed if the adverse change in circumstances is self-induced. |
| UWY v UWZ | Family Court | Yes | [2019] SGFC 60 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a variation will be disallowed if the adverse change in circumstances is self-induced. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) Section 112(1) | Singapore |
| Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) Section 112(4) | Singapore |
| Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 1985 Edition) Section 106 | Singapore |
| Women’s Charter Section 186(3) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) Section 18(2) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Consent Order
- Matrimonial Home
- Matrimonial Assets
- Section 112(4) Women’s Charter
- Unworkability
- Retrospective Application
- Financial Difficulties
- Bankruptcy
- Tenants in Common
- Exclusive Occupation
15.2 Keywords
- Divorce
- Matrimonial Assets
- Consent Order
- Variation
- Jurisdiction
- Singapore Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Matrimonial Assets | 90 |
| Family Law | 90 |
| Division of Matrimonial Property | 80 |
| Matrimonial Assets Division | 70 |
| Maintenance | 60 |
| Divorce | 50 |
| Civil Procedure | 30 |
| Property Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Family Law
- Divorce
- Matrimonial Assets
- Jurisdiction
- Civil Procedure