JOHAN DANIEL BLOMBERG v KHAN ZHI YAN
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| 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 — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (7)
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.
[2023] SGHC 238 explained
JOHAN DANIEL BLOMBERG v KHAN ZHI YAN ([2023] SGHC 238) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 30 August 2023. It is categorised under Civil Procedure. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2023] SGHC 238 about?
JOHAN DANIEL BLOMBERG v KHAN ZHI YAN ([2023] SGHC 238) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Judgments and orders” and “Civil Procedure — Amendments — Orders”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 238 consider?
The judgment refers to Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122), Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A), and Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
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.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (9)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2023] SGHC 238)