WTB v WTC

[2024] SGHCF 1 High Court (Family Division) 16 January 2024 • HCF/OSN 10/2023 • 3 min read

Key facts

Court	High Court (Family Division)
Decided	16 January 2024
Judge	Choo Han Teck
Charges / claim	Family Law
Counsel	Yeo & Associates LLC, Alvina Logan, Tan Yee Tat

Source: [2024] SGHCF 1, High Court (Family Division), decided 16 January 2024 — eLitigation. Updated 25 June 2026.

Catchwords

Family Law — Matrimonial proceedings — Whether a second extension of time to file a notice of appeal should be allowed

Practice Areas

Family Law

Judges (1)

Choo Han Teck Delivered

Counsel (3)

Yeo & Associates LLC Firm Alvina Logan Counsel Respondent Tan Yee Tat Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

WTB Applicant WTC Respondent

Case Significance

WTB v WTC [2024] SGHCF 1 was decided in the Family Justice Courts of Singapore (General Division of the High Court, Family Division) by Choo Han Teck J on 16 January 2024, in Originating Summons No 10 of 2023, with judgment reserved after a hearing on 11 January 2024. The applicant husband sought a second extension of time to file a notice of appeal against a District Judge's orders, handed down on 22 May 2023, concerning ancillary matters including the division of matrimonial assets and child maintenance. The parties had obtained final judgment of their divorce on 31 May 2023.

The husband had originally needed to file his notice of appeal within 14 days of 22 May 2023 but failed to do so, citing his pursuit of legal aid; he applied for an extension in HCF/OSN 6/2023 on 22 June 2023, and at the hearing on 15 August 2023 Choo Han Teck J granted him 14 days' leave to appeal. He again failed to comply, and sought a second extension. The single catchword frames the issue as whether a second extension of time to file a notice of appeal should be allowed.

Summary

WTB, the husband, applied to the Family Division of the High Court for a second extension of time to file a notice of appeal against a District Judge's orders on ancillary matters in divorce proceedings, including the division of matrimonial assets and child maintenance, having earlier been granted one extension which he failed to meet. The court found an unreasonable delay of 118 days and considered his prospects of appeal, which rested partly on an accountant's report concerning the value of his company, to be between slim and none. The court dismissed the application and ordered the husband to pay the respondent wife costs of $500.

What was the issue in WTB v WTC [2024] SGHCF 1?

The applicant husband sought a second extension of time to file a notice of appeal against a District Judge's ancillary-matters orders on division of matrimonial assets and child maintenance, after missing both the original 14-day deadline and an earlier extension. Choo Han Teck J heard the matter on 16 January 2024.