Blomberg v Khan: Appeal on Setting Aside Consent Order under Protection from Harassment Act

In Blomberg, Johan Daniel v Khan Zhi Yan, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal against the District Judge's decision to set aside a consent order made under the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA). The consent order restricted Ms. Khan from making statements or reports about Mr. Blomberg. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the consent order should not have been set aside ab initio and varying the terms of the consent order.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding setting aside a consent order under the Protection from Harassment Act. The court allowed the appeal, varying the consent order.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Blomberg, Johan DanielAppellantIndividualAppeal AllowedWon
Khan Zhi YanRespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
See Kee OonJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ranjit SinghFrancis Khoo & Lim
Andre TeoFrancis Khoo & Lim
Alfred DodwellDodwell & Co LLC

4. Facts

  1. Mr Blomberg and Ms Khan are ex-spouses involved in ongoing court proceedings in Singapore and Sweden.
  2. Mr Blomberg commenced DC/PHA 93/2020 against Ms Khan seeking a protection order.
  3. The parties obtained a Consent Order on 10 May 2021, restricting Ms Khan from making statements or reports about Mr Blomberg.
  4. Ms Khan applied to set aside the Consent Order on 10 June 2022.
  5. The District Judge allowed Ms Khan’s application on 3 October 2022.
  6. Mr Blomberg filed an appeal against the District Judge’s decision on 10 October 2022.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Blomberg, Johan Daniel v Khan Zhi Yan, Registrar’s Appeal (State Courts) No 4 of 2023, [2023] SGHC 238

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Mr Blomberg filed supporting affidavit alleging harassment by Ms Khan.
Consent Order issued.
Ms Khan applied to set aside the Consent Order.
Ms Khan’s application was allowed.
Mr Blomberg filed an appeal against the DJ’s decision.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Setting Aside Consent Order
    • Outcome: The court held that the consent order should not have been set aside ab initio.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2012] 3 SLR 1003
      • [2017] 2 SLR 12

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Setting aside of Consent Order
  2. Protection Order

9. Cause of Actions

  • Harassment

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Poh Huat Heng Corp Pte Ltd and others v Hafizul Islam Kofil UddinCourt of AppealYes[2012] 3 SLR 1003SingaporeCited for the principle that a consent judgment or order cannot generally be set aside save where there are exceptional reasons.
Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd and others v Yeo Boong Hua and others and another appeal and other mattersCourt of AppealYes[2017] 2 SLR 12SingaporeCited for the principle that the court does not have a residual discretion not to enforce or to set aside a substantive contractual consent order on the basis that this is necessary to prevent injustice.
Siebe Gorman & Co Ltd v Pneupac LtdN/AYes[1982] 1 WLR 185N/ACited for the principle that only contractual consent orders may only be interfered with on the same grounds as any other contract.
Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu ManN/AYes[2006] 2 SLR(R) 117SingaporeCited for the principle that in order to ascertain which category a consent order falls under, the court would have regard to, inter alia, whether there was prior negotiation or clear written correspondence.
Wiltopps (Asia) Ltd v Drew & Napier and anotherN/AYes[1999] 1 SLR(R) 252SingaporeCited for the principle that in order to ascertain which category a consent order falls under, the court would have regard to, inter alia, whether there was consideration.
Sumber Indah Pte Ltd v Kamala Jewellers Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2018] SGHC 70SingaporeCited for the distinction between procedural and substantive consent orders.
Bakery Mart Pte Ltd v Ng Wei Teck Michael and othersN/AYes[2005] 1 SLR(R) 28SingaporeCited for the principle that a contractual consent order should only be set aside pursuant to ordinary principles of contract law.
Airtrust (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Kao Chai-Chau LindaN/AYes[2014] 2 SLR 693SingaporeCited for the principle that a contractual consent order should only be set aside pursuant to ordinary principles of contract law.
Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-GeneralN/AYes[2017] 2 SLR 850SingaporeCited for the statutory interpretation framework.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)
Rules of Court 2021
Supreme Court of Judicature (Protection from Harassment) Rules 2021

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed)Singapore
Guardianship of Infants Act 1934 (2020 Rev Ed)Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (2020 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Consent Order
  • Protection Order
  • Setting Aside
  • Vitiating Factors
  • Substantive Contractual Consent Order
  • Ab Initio

15.2 Keywords

  • consent order
  • protection from harassment act
  • appeal
  • civil procedure
  • contract law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Protection from Harassment90
Restraining Orders80
Civil Practice70
Family Law40
Children's Welfare30
Criminal Law30
Contract Law30
Torts20
Personal Injury10

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Harassment Law
  • Contract Law