WKK v WKL

[2023] SGHCF 33 High Court (Family Division) 25 July 2023 HCF/S 3/2021 ( HCF/SUM 72/2023,HCF/SUM 106/2023 )

1 cases cited

Key facts

Court	High Court (Family Division)
Decided	25 July 2023
Judge	Choo Han Teck
Charges / claim	Civil Procedure
Counsel	H C Law Practice, Hilborne Law LLC, Lee Chung Yen Steven, Muhammed Riyach bin Hussain Omar

Source: [2023] SGHCF 33, High Court (Family Division), decided 25 July 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Extension of time

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

Choo Han Teck Delivered

Counsel (4)

H C Law Practice Firm Hilborne Law LLC Firm Lee Chung Yen Steven Counsel for the defendant Muhammed Riyach bin Hussain Omar Counsel for the plaintiff

Parties (2)

WKK Plaintiff WKL Defendant

Case Significance

WKK v WKL [2023] SGHCF 33 is a grounds of decision of Choo Han Teck J in the Family Justice Courts, delivered on 25 July 2023 in Suit No 3 of 2021 (Summonses Nos 72 and 106 of 2023). The plaintiff in HCF/SUM 72/2023 sought to reinstate an action that had been struck out for failing to comply with an unless order, and a further extension of time to set down for trial, following a repeated failure to meet court deadlines. The judgment records that this was an identical application to HCF/SUM 287/2022 and HCF/SUM 344/2022, which Choo Han Teck J had heard and dismissed on 16 February 2023 in WKK v WKL [2023] SGHCF 6, and that he dismissed this application too, observing that the plaintiff should have appealed the earlier decision; counsel for the plaintiff, Mr Riyach Hussain, did not appear on 21 July 2023 due to illness, while Mr Steven Lee appeared for the defendant.

Summary

This concerned an application to reinstate an action that had been struck out for non-compliance with an unless order, together with a request for a further extension of time to set the matter down for trial. Choo Han Teck J noted that the application was identical to two earlier applications he had already dismissed and that the proper course would have been an appeal. He dismissed the application and awarded costs to the defendant, with no order made on the related summons.

What was WKK v WKL [2023] SGHCF 33 about?

It was a family proceedings decision of Choo Han Teck J, delivered on 25 July 2023, on an application to reinstate an action struck out for breaching an unless order and for a further extension of time to set down for trial, after repeated failures to meet court deadlines.

What did the court decide in [2023] SGHCF 33?

Choo Han Teck J dismissed the application, noting it was identical to HCF/SUM 287/2022 and HCF/SUM 344/2022 which he had dismissed on 16 February 2023 in WKK v WKL [2023] SGHCF 6, and that the plaintiff should have appealed rather than reapplied.