UJM v UJL: Leave to Appeal, Division of Matrimonial Assets & Costs in Divorce
In UJM v UJL, the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed an application by UJM (the Husband) for leave to appeal against a decision of the Appellate Division of the High Court, which had affirmed a General Division judge's order for financial relief to UJL (the Wife) following their divorce in Pakistan. The court dismissed the Husband's application, finding it was filed out of time without explanation and was unmeritorious, as the proposed appeal did not raise a point of law of public importance. The Husband was ordered to pay costs of $5,000 to the Wife.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Originating Summons dismissed. The Husband is to pay costs of $5,000 (all-in) to the Wife.
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal judgment on leave to appeal a High Court decision regarding the division of matrimonial assets and costs following a divorce.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The parties were married in Pakistan in 1995 under Islamic law and subsequently moved to Singapore.
- The parties divorced in Pakistan in 2016 by way of khulla.
- The Wife sought financial relief in Singapore under Chapter 4A of the Women's Charter.
- The Husband claimed the Wife was bound by a settlement agreement.
- The Wife disputed the validity of the settlement agreement, claiming she only signed one page.
- The General Division Judge granted financial relief to the Wife, ordering the Husband to pay $2,586,088.01.
- The Appellate Division dismissed the Husband's appeal against the General Division Judge's decision.
5. Formal Citations
- UJM v UJL, Originating Summons No 21 of 2021, [2021] SGCA 117
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Parties married in Pakistan under Islamic marriage laws. | |
| Parties moved to Singapore. | |
| Wife commenced a suit for dissolution of marriage in Karachi. | |
| Parties reconciled and entered into a Compromise Decree. | |
| Husband pronounced one talaq against Wife via a Deed of First Divorce. | |
| Husband alleged that the Wife had agreed to a settlement agreement. | |
| Wife commenced a suit for dissolution of marriage by khulla in Karachi. | |
| Parties divorced in Karachi, Pakistan. | |
| Wife applied to the Singapore court for leave to file an application for financial relief. | |
| Husband’s appeal against the DJ’s grant of leave was dismissed by the Gen Div Judge. | |
| Wife applied to the Singapore Syariah court for nafkah iddah and mutaah. | |
| The Gen Div Judgment was published. | |
| The AD released the AD Judgment dismissing the Husband’s appeal. | |
| OS 21 was filed late. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Leave to Appeal
- Outcome: Leave to appeal was denied because the application was filed out of time and the proposed appeal did not raise a point of law of public importance.
- Category: Procedural
- Division of Matrimonial Assets
- Outcome: The court upheld the lower court's decision regarding the division of matrimonial assets.
- Category: Substantive
- Validity of Settlement Agreement
- Outcome: The court found that even if a settlement agreement existed, it was not necessarily binding and the court could still grant additional relief.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Leave to appeal
- Reversal of the Appellate Division's decision
9. Cause of Actions
- Application for financial relief under Chapter 4A of the Women’s Charter
10. Practice Areas
- Divorce
- Family Litigation
- Appellate Practice
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Noor Azlin bte Abdul Rahman and another v Changi General Hospital Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 440 | Singapore | Considered the wide-ranging amendments to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act which established the Appellate Division of the High Court. |
| UJM v UJL | Appellate Division of the High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC(A) 10 | Singapore | The ex tempore judgment of the AD which affirmed the judgment of the General Division of the High Court judge. |
| TMO v TMP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 565 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the Gen Div retained residual jurisdiction by virtue of ss 16 and 17 of the SCJA and could grant relief under s 121G of the Women’s Charter. |
| Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 862 | Singapore | Outlines the grounds for granting leave to appeal. |
| Bin Hee Heng v Ho Siew Lan (acting as executrix and trustee in the estate of Gillian Ho Siu Ngin) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 4 | Singapore | Lists the general requirements for the grant of an extension of time. |
| Chew Eng Han v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 1130 | Singapore | Articulates the considerations behind the Court of Appeal’s heightened scrutiny in applications for leave to appeal against decisions made by a coram of three judges as opposed to one, even if all the judges sit in the same capacity as Gen Div Judges. |
| TUC v TUD | High Court | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 1360 | Singapore | Articulates the considerations behind the Court of Appeal’s heightened scrutiny in applications for leave to appeal against decisions made by a coram of three judges as opposed to one, even if all the judges sit in the same capacity as Gen Div Judges. |
| Hwa Aik Engineering Pte Ltd v Munshi Mohammad Faiz and another | Appellate Division of the High Court | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 1288 | Singapore | Applications for leave to appeal against decisions of the Gen Div are to be assessed on the same principles, regardless of whether they are placed before the AD or the Court of Appeal. |
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Framework for statutory interpretation. |
| Skyventure VWT Singapore Pte Ltd v Chief Assessor and another and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 116 | Singapore | The identical wording contained within the two provisions suggests that they should be interpreted in a similar fashion, if there is no reason to suggest otherwise. |
| JWR Pte Ltd v Edmond Pereira Law Corp and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 744 | Singapore | When hearing an appeal, the Court of Appeal considers, in the main, whether the court below was wrong or otherwise in its decision. |
| Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu and another v Public Prosecutor and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 2 SLR 141 | Singapore | The interpretation of the requirement of “question of law of public interest” is to a similar effect in the context of the requirements for leave to bring a criminal reference under s 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code. |
| Ho Soo Fong and another v Ho Pak Kim Realty Co Pte Ltd (in liquidation) | Appellate Division of the High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC(A) 11 | Singapore | The point of law of public importance that “the appeal will raise” must arise from the decision and reasoning of the court below, ie, the AD. |
| Henderson v Henderson | Court of Chancery | Yes | (1843) 67 ER 313 | England and Wales | The AD Judges rejected the Husband’s argument that the Wife should have claimed relief from the Pakistan court at the time of the divorce order, and as such, her failure to do so caused her to fall afoul of the rule in Henderson. |
| TNL v TNK and another appeal and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 609 | Singapore | The AD Judges agreed with the Gen Div Judge that as this was a long single-income marriage, the approach set out by this court in TNL v TNK and another appeal and another matter [2017] 1 SLR 609 would apply such that the starting point was equal apportionment – ie, a division of the matrimonial assets in a 50:50 ratio. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Section 47 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) | Singapore |
| Order 57 Rule 2(A) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5) | Singapore |
| Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 121B of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 121D(1) of the Women’s Charter | Singapore |
| s 121D(2) of the Women’s Charter | Singapore |
| s 121F of the Women’s Charter | Singapore |
| s 121E of the Women’s Charter | Singapore |
| s 121G of the Women’s Charter | Singapore |
| ss 16 and 17 of the SCJA | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Amendment Act 2019 (Act 40 of 2019) | Singapore |
| O 57 r 2A(1) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| O 57 r 2A(3) of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
| O 56A r 12(3)(b) of the ROC | Singapore |
| s 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Leave to appeal
- Matrimonial assets
- Settlement agreement
- Financial relief
- Divorce
- Khulla
- Point of law of public importance
- Appellate Division
- General Division
- Women's Charter
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act
15.2 Keywords
- Leave to appeal
- Matrimonial assets
- Settlement agreement
- Financial relief
- Divorce
- Singapore
- Family Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Matrimonial Assets | 95 |
| Division of Matrimonial Property | 95 |
| Matrimonial Proceedings | 90 |
| Appellate Practice | 80 |
| Civil Procedure | 75 |
| Family Law | 60 |
| Islamic Law | 40 |
| Succession Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Family Law
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Divorce
- Matrimonial Assets