WFT v WFS: Striking Out Notice of Appeal for Failure to Provide Security for Costs
In WFT v WFS, before the Family Division of the High Court of Singapore on 2 November 2022, Justice Choo Han Teck dismissed the applicant's application to reinstate a notice of appeal (HCF/DCA 52/2022) that had been struck out for failure to provide security for costs. The court emphasized that the proper recourse was to first set aside the order striking out the notice of appeal and then apply for leave to appeal out of time. The court found no good grounds for the appeal, as the applicant's stated reason of reconciliation lacked evidence of the respondent's amenability.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court (Family Division)1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The court dismissed the applicant's application to reinstate a notice of appeal struck out for failing to provide security for costs, emphasizing the need to set aside the original striking-out order first.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WFT | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | Grace Tan |
| WFS | Respondent | Individual | Application dismissed | Won | Tay Choon Leng John |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Choo Han Teck | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Grace Tan | G.T. Chambers |
| Tay Choon Leng John | John Tay & Co |
4. Facts
- The applicant and respondent are in the process of divorce.
- Interim judgment was given on 13 April 2022.
- The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal on 22 April 2022.
- The applicant was initially granted provisional legal aid but it was later refused.
- The applicant was directed to pay security for costs by 6 July 2022, and later reminded to pay by 22 July 2022.
- The applicant failed to pay the security for costs.
- The Notice of Appeal was struck off on 28 July 2022.
5. Formal Citations
- WFTvWFS, , [2022] SGHCF 27
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Interim judgment given. | |
| Notice of Appeal filed in HCF/DCA 52/2022. | |
| Legal aid refused. | |
| Applicant directed to pay security for costs by this date. | |
| Applicant reminded to pay security for costs by 22 July 2022. | |
| Deadline for applicant to pay security for costs. | |
| Applicant notified that DCA 52 had been struck off. | |
| Applicant instructed counsel, Ms Grace Tan. | |
| Judgment delivered. | |
| Judgment date. |
7. Legal Issues
- Striking out of Notice of Appeal
- Outcome: The court held that the notice of appeal was properly struck out due to the applicant's failure to provide security for costs, and the application to reinstate the notice was dismissed.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to provide security for costs
- Reinstatement of struck out notice of appeal
8. Remedies Sought
- Reinstatement of Notice of Appeal
- Extension of time to furnish Security for Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Family Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No cited cases | |||||
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Section 824 of the Family Justice Rules 2014 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Security for costs
- Notice of appeal
- Striking out
- Reinstatement
- Interim judgment
- Legal aid
15.2 Keywords
- Family Justice Courts
- Singapore
- Appeal
- Security for Costs
- Striking Out
16. Subjects
- Family Justice Rules
- Civil Procedure
- Family Law
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Family Law