XXM v XXN

Facts

XXM, the wife, and XXN, the husband, were divorced by an interim judgment granted on 17 January 2023 in FC/D 5600/2022. The husband, then unrepresented, did not attend the ancillary matters hearing on 5 July 2023. The Order of Court dated 24 July 2023 gave the wife sole custody, care and control of their son, gave the husband reasonable access in her presence, required him to pay $500 a month in child maintenance, and ordered his interest in the HDB flat transferred to her on her refunding his CPF account. Final judgment followed on 31 July 2023.

The husband did not transfer the flat. The wife applied in FC/SUM 1649/2024 to add a clause empowering an Assistant Registrar to sign the transfer documents on his behalf. The husband applied in FC/SUM 3721/2024, filed on 12 December 2024, to set aside the ancillary matters order and the final judgment or, alternatively, to vary the orders to joint custody, liberal access and a sale of the flat with equal division. He said he missed the hearings because, he believed, the wife removed the court's letters from his drawer, and he alleged that she had not disclosed an insurance policy, rental income and a $65,000 housing grant, and had relied on untrue allegations of violence. The wife denied all of this.

Issues

1. Whether the ancillary matters order made in the husband's absence should be set aside
2. Whether the final judgment could be set aside
3. Whether the custody and access orders should be varied under section 128 of the Women's Charter 1961
4. Whether the order on the flat should be varied under section 112(4) of the Women's Charter 1961

Holding

The District Judge dismissed the husband's application in SUM 3721 in full and ordered him to pay the wife's costs of it, to be agreed or fixed. On the wife's SUM 1649, the court did not amend the ancillary matters order but ordered that an Assistant Registrar is empowered under section 31 of the Family Justice Act 2014 to sign the documents needed to give effect to the transfer of the flat if the husband fails to do so within 7 days of a written request.

Reasoning

On setting aside, the court found the husband's account not credible. He admitted being served in December 2022 with papers claiming the very relief later granted and reading court letters with hearing details, yet never contacted the court. His claim that the wife took his letters was unproved, and the son's words he relied on did not accuse her. WhatsApp screenshots showed the order was delivered to him on 31 August 2023. Applying AOO v AON [2011] 4 SLR 1169 and the factors in Su Sh-Hsyu v Wee Yue Chew [2007] 3 SLR(R) 673, his absence was deliberate, his delay was more than 16 months against a 14-day limit, a full retrial would be needed, and a real prospect of success was not shown: the housing grant was properly part of the wife's contributions, the omitted policy would only have increased her share, the rental claim rested on inadmissible hearsay, and he disclosed none of his own assets. No miscarriage of justice had occurred.

On the final judgment, following VQB v VQC [2021] SGHCF 5, the Women's Charter 1961 makes no provision for setting it aside, save perhaps for fraud tainting the judgment itself, and there was none.

On custody and access, the order rested on a 2020 consent protection order restraining the husband from family violence. There was no misrepresentation, mistake or material change since July 2023.

On the flat, AYM v AYL [2013] 1 SLR 924 allows variation under section 112(4) only for unworkability or fraud. The order was unworkable only because the husband refused to comply, and no fraud was shown. With his application dismissed, there was no reason to refuse the wife's, and an empowering order sufficed.

From the judgment