JOHAN DANIEL BLOMBERG v KHAN ZHI YAN

[2023] SGHC 238 High Court (General Division) 30 August 2023 HC/RAS 4/2023

9 cases cited (8 SG, 1 foreign)

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	30 August 2023
Judge	See Kee Oon
Charges / claim	Civil Procedure
Counsel	Dodwell & Co LLC, Francis Khoo & Lim, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, Alfred Dodwell, Andre Teo, Benny Santoso, Ranjit Singh

Source: [2023] SGHC 238, High Court (General Division), decided 30 August 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Judgments and orders Civil Procedure — Amendments — Orders

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

See Kee Oon Delivered

Counsel (7)

Dodwell & Co LLC Firm Francis Khoo & Lim Firm Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Firm Alfred Dodwell Counsel for the respondent Andre Teo Counsel for the appellant Benny Santoso Counsel for the young independent counsel Ranjit Singh Counsel for the appellant

Parties (2)

Blomberg, Johan Daniel Appellant

Khan Zhi Yan Respondent

Case Significance

Blomberg, Johan Daniel v Khan Zhi Yan [2023] SGHC 238 is a reserved judgment of See Kee Oon J in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 30 August 2023 in Registrar's Appeal (State Courts) No 4 of 2023, arising from Protection from Harassment Court Originating Application No 9 of 2022. The appellant, Mr Johan Daniel Blomberg, and the respondent, Ms Khan Zhi Yan, are ex-spouses involved in ongoing proceedings in Singapore and Sweden, including proceedings under the Guardianship of Infants Act 1934 in the Family Justice Courts. The appeal was brought against the District Judge's decision to set aside a consent order made under the Protection from Harassment Act on the basis of its imprecise terms and wide ambit, with catchwords addressing judgments and orders and the amendment of orders.

Summary

Johan Daniel Blomberg appealed against a District Judge's decision to set aside a consent order made under the Protection from Harassment Act between him and his ex-spouse Khan Zhi Yan, under which she undertook not to make statements or reports about him. The issue was whether the contractual consent order could be set aside for imprecise terms and wide ambit. The court held there were no vitiating factors and no residual discretion to set aside the order, but varied paragraph 1 for clarity.

What was Blomberg, Johan Daniel v Khan Zhi Yan [2023] SGHC 238 about?

It was an appeal before See Kee Oon J against a District Judge's decision to set aside a consent order made under the Protection from Harassment Act between ex-spouses Johan Daniel Blomberg and Khan Zhi Yan, with judgment delivered on 30 August 2023.

Why was the consent order set aside below in [2023] SGHC 238?

The District Judge had set aside the parties' consent order, made under the Protection from Harassment Act, on the basis of its imprecise terms and wide ambit; the present appeal concerned that decision on judgments, orders and amendments.