UMM v UML [2018] SGHCF 13

Outcome: Appeals dismissed.

Facts

1            Parties married in 1986 and have two adult children. The Husband appealed against the District Judge’s decision to dismiss his application to set aside ancillary orders made by consent (“the AM Orders”), as well as against the District Judge’s decision to allow Wife’s application to vary the AM Orders.

Court’s Decision:

2            The power to set aside or vary a consent order on the division of assets under s 112(4) of the Women’s Charter is to be exercised narrowly. An applicant must prove one of the vitiating factors, or that the order was or has become unworkable.: at [8].

3            While it is possible that unworkability may be due to a fundamental misunderstanding, it must be a fundamental misunderstanding on the face of the order.: at [8].

4            Consent orders are the end of a process of “give-and-take” to harmoniously resolve a dispute between parties. There is another party, the Wife in this case, who has participated in negotiations towards an agreement and who has relied on the resolution process to move on from this dispute. The need for finality is a significant consideration.: at [12].

5            When the court determines a variation application, it does not re-open the original orders with the effect of disregarding the original order which is the subject of the variation application. The Wife’s application for variation does not confer on the Husband a license to re-litigate the AMs. Instead, in the context of varying a prior consent AM order, the court is generally limited to considering whether the order was unworkable or has become unworkable.: at [15].

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.