WKK v WKL

[2023] SGHCF 6 High Court (Family Division) 16 February 2023 HCF/S 3/2021 ( HCF/SUM 344/2022,HCF/SUM 287/2022 ) 4 min read

1 cases cited Cited by 1 case

Key facts

Court	High Court (Family Division)
Decided	16 February 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 6, High Court (Family Division), decided 16 February 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 Defendant Muhammed Riyach bin Hussain Omar Counsel Plaintiff

Parties (2)

WKK Plaintiff WKL Defendant

Case Significance

WKK v WKL [2023] SGHCF 6 is a decision of the General Division of the High Court (Family Division) in Suit No 3 of 2021, involving Summonses Nos 287 and 344 of 2022, delivered by Choo Han Teck J on 16 February 2023 after a hearing on 10 February 2023. The plaintiff and defendant are brothers who, after their father's death, quarrelled over which of his wills was valid — one executed on 28 September 2019 and an earlier one executed on 29 August 2016. The plaintiff had commenced HCF/S 3/2021 seeking a declaration that the 28 September 2019 will was the father's lawful last will, but the action was deemed discontinued on 15 September 2022 when he failed to set it down for trial under an unless order, HCF/ORC 272/2022. By the two summonses, the plaintiff sought to reinstate the suit and obtain an extension of time.

[2023] SGHCF 6 explained

WKK v WKL ([2023] SGHCF 6) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (Family Division) on 16 February 2023. It is categorised under Civil Procedure. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 1 other reported Singapore judgment, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. 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] SGHCF 6 about?

WKK v WKL ([2023] SGHCF 6) is a High Court (Family Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Extension of time”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2023] SGHCF 6 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2023] SGHC 27. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

How influential is [2023] SGHCF 6?

Within this corpus, [2023] SGHCF 6 has been cited by 1 later reported Singapore judgment. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.

Summary

Two brothers disputed their late father's wills, and after the plaintiff's suit was deemed discontinued for repeatedly failing to comply with unless orders to set the matter down for trial, he applied to reinstate the action and obtain an extension of time. Choo Han Teck J noted the plaintiff's numerous non-compliances with court deadlines and held that a discontinued action could only be recommenced as a fresh action, not revived. Both applications were dismissed, with costs fixed at $2,500 for each.

What was the family dispute in WKK v WKL about ([2023] SGHCF 6)?

In [2023] SGHCF 6, two brothers quarrelled after their father's death over which of his wills was valid — one executed on 28 September 2019 and an earlier one from 29 August 2016. The plaintiff sought a declaration favouring the 2019 will.

Why was the suit in WKK v WKL deemed discontinued ([2023] SGHCF 6)?

HCF/S 3/2021 was deemed discontinued on 15 September 2022 when the plaintiff failed to set the matter down for trial as required by an unless order, HCF/ORC 272/2022. He then applied to reinstate it and for an extension of time.