URU v URV [2018] SGHCF 22

Outcome: Appeal allowed

Facts

1  The appellant applied for leave to commence committal proceedings. The application was made in respect of a consent order, a copy of which was endorsed by the appellant’s solicitors with a penal notice and served on the respondent. The Family Court took the view that the appellant’s solicitors required leave of court to endorse the copy of the consent order with a penal notice as a prerequisite to the commencement of committal proceedings. As leave had not been sought, the Family Court denied the appellant leave to commence committal proceedings.

Court’s decision

2  The surrounding context of the relevant provisions in the Family Justice Rules suggests that the enforcing party may endorse a penal notice on a court order without leave of Court: at [15].

3  Parties who have obtained orders or decisions of the court in their favour should, where necessary, be able to seek enforcement through committal proceedings and should not have to face an excessive number of procedural hurdles. Parties who have obtained judgments in their favour are also entitled to expect that those who are required by such judgments to do, or refrain from doing certain acts, will comply with those orders and will understand that non-compliance carries consequences: at [39].

4  The Family Division of the High Court therefore allowed the appeal and granted leave to the appellant to commence committal proceedings.

The full text of the decision can be found here.


This summary is provided to assist the public to have a better understanding of the Court’s judgment. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s judgment.