VUG v VUF: Appeal on Variation of Consent Order in Family Law Dispute
In the Family Justice Courts of Singapore, the case of VUG v VUF involved an appeal by the Husband against the dismissal of his application to vary a consent order related to ancillary matters in their divorce. The dispute centered on the responsibility for refunding Central Provident Fund (CPF) monies used for the matrimonial property. The Husband claimed misrepresentation by the Wife's previous solicitors from the Legal Aid Bureau (LAB). Choo Han Teck J dismissed the appeal and set aside the Disputed Consent Order, finding that there was no true consent between the parties.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court (Family Division)1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed; the Disputed Consent Order is set aside with no order as to costs.
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding a consent order variation in a divorce case, focusing on CPF refunds and misrepresentation. The court set aside the consent order.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VUG | Appellant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | Yap Teong Liang |
| VUF | Respondent | Individual | Disputed Consent Order set aside | Neutral | Ang Yu Wen Amelia, Ee Hui Ying Samantha |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Choo Han Teck | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Yap Teong Liang | T L Yap Law Chambers LLC |
| Ang Yu Wen Amelia | Lee & Lee |
| Ee Hui Ying Samantha | Lee & Lee |
4. Facts
- The Husband and Wife were married on 8 June 2013 and have two daughters.
- The Wife commenced divorce proceedings on 3 December 2018.
- The interim judgment was granted on 9 May 2019, and final judgment on 10 August 2021.
- A consent order was made on 6 December 2022 varying Lai J’s Order.
- The Husband applied to vary the Disputed Consent Order, which was dismissed by the district judge.
- The Husband claimed he was misled by the Wife's solicitors regarding CPF refunds.
- The Wife had withdrawn $179,995.07 from her CPF account for the matrimonial property.
5. Formal Citations
- VUG v VUF, , [2023] SGHCF 46
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Parties married | |
| Wife commenced divorce proceedings | |
| Interim judgment granted | |
| District judge made the ancillary order | |
| Final judgment granted | |
| Lai J varied the AM Order | |
| Wife was granted leave to appeal on limited grounds | |
| Wife filed her appeal | |
| Husband stated he had no objection to Wife receiving cash if CPF Board approved | |
| Legal Aid Bureau sent draft summons of the consent order to Mr Yap | |
| Mr Yap asked LAB about CPF Board approval | |
| LAB wrote to the CPF Board | |
| CPF Board replied favourably to LAB | |
| LAB wrote to Mr Yap forwarding CPF Board’s reply | |
| Mr Yap accepted LAB’s draft | |
| Consent order varying Lai J’s Order obtained | |
| Wife withdrew her appeal to the AD | |
| CPF Board informed the Husband of his responsibility for refunding CPF money | |
| LAB explained Mr Yap’s additional clause in a letter | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment date |
7. Legal Issues
- Variation of Consent Orders
- Outcome: The court set aside the Disputed Consent Order, finding that there was no true consent between the parties.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2023] SGHCF 26
- Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that the Husband had been misled due to misrepresentations on the part of the Wife’s previous solicitors from LAB.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Variation of Consent Order
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WGE v WGF | General Division of the High Court (Family Division) | Yes | [2023] SGHCF 26 | Singapore | Cited for the court's discretion under r 831(3) and (4) Family Justice Rules 2014 to ensure determination on the merits of the real question in controversy between the parties. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| r 831(3) and (4) Family Justice Rules 2014 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Consent Order
- Central Provident Fund
- CPF
- Matrimonial Property
- Misrepresentation
- Variation Application
15.2 Keywords
- family law
- divorce
- consent order
- CPF
- appeal
- misrepresentation
16. Subjects
- Family Law
- Divorce
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
17. Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Divorce Law
- Consent Orders
- Civil Procedure