AYM v AYL [2012] SGCA 68

Outcome: Appeal allowed in part

Facts

1 This appeal concerned the variation of an agreement on the division of assets which was recorded in a consent order.

Court’s Decision:

2 Once the order of court with respect to the division of matrimonial assets has been completely implemented or spent inasmuch as everything that is required to be done has been effected and the assets concerned have in fact been distributed to the parties concerned, the court does not have the power to revisit or reopen the order under s 112(4) of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed): at [22].

3 The court would make the necessary variations to an order for the division of matrimonial assets only where the order was unworkable or has become unworkable: at [23].

4 Where an order becomes unworkable in the literal sense of the word, ie, that it is a matter of practical impossibility to even implement it, it is fair and reasonable that the court is empowered under s 112(4) to make, inter alia, the necessary variations. In addition, where new circumstances have emerged since the order was made which so radically change the situation so that to implement the order as originally made would be to implement something which is radically different from what was originally intended, this would amount to unworkability: at [25].

5 Business failure and a loss of income did not suffice in the present case to justify the invocation of s 112(4) in so far as the division of matrimonial assets was concerned: at [33].

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.