VWB v VWA

Facts

VWB (the husband) and VWA (the wife) married in 2006 and received interim judgment of divorce on 23 May 2019. In the ancillary matters a district judge ordered the husband to pay $5,000 per month for the two children and $2,680 per month for the wife. His appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 23 February 2022 with costs of $8,000.

The wife applied to enforce the maintenance order. On 21 October 2022 a second district judge fixed the arrears at $65,567.64, ordered them paid in monthly instalments of $5,000 from 1 November 2022 (EMO 997/2022), and required the husband to show proof of payment in court monthly for six months. His time to appeal expired on 4 November 2022. That day he appeared before a third district judge, who gave him until 2 December 2022 either to pay the November balance of $9680 or to provide proof of the due filing of a notice of appeal and a stay summons, failing which he faced five days' imprisonment. An FJC email that evening said he could submit his notice of appeal on that date. He tried to file on 7 November 2022, was told he was out of time, and on 10 November 2022 filed Originating Summons (Family) No 3/2022 in the High Court (Family Division) for an extension of time to appeal and a stay of the EMO. Both parties acted in person.

Issues

1. Whether the husband should be granted an extension of time to appeal against the enforcement order
2. Whether the enforcement order should be stayed pending the appeal

Holding

The court allowed the application in part. It granted the husband an extension of time to 27 March 2023 to appeal against EMO 997/2022 and dismissed his prayer for a stay of execution. Costs of $100 were ordered in the wife's favour because his late filing had made the application necessary.

Reasoning

On the extension, the court weighed the four factors in AD v AE [2004] 2 SLR(R) 505. The delay of 6 days was short. The husband's account of being sent between service centres and finding the Registry closed might not be accurate, and as a highly educated doctor he bore responsibility for pursuing his case sensibly. But the third district judge's directions did not specify a filing date, and the FJC email's use of the word submit was ambiguous, so his reading that time had been extended was not unreasonable; he then followed up promptly. The appeal could not be called hopeless, so that factor was neutral, and any expense to the wife could be met by costs.

On the stay, the court applied the principles summarised in VOC v VOD [2021] SGHCF 14: a successful litigant is not usually deprived of the fruits of litigation, and special circumstances going to enforcement must be shown. The husband's only argument, lack of funds, had already been considered when maintenance was ordered and on his earlier appeal. The appeal would not be rendered nugatory, as an undisputed sum from the division of matrimonial assets remained owing and could be adjusted. The court also explained that the later suspension of the show-payment hearings was not a stay, though it had the practical effect of one by holding back the court's power to imprison under s 71(1)(b) of the Women's Charter.

From the judgment