UDA v UDB and another [2018] SGCA 20

Outcome: Appeal dismissed

Facts

1 An intervener appealed against the decision of a Judge of the Family Division of the High Court, who took the view that s 112 of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) (“WC”) does not enable the court to make an order directly affecting a third party’s (in this case, the intervener’s) property rights.

Court’s Decision:

2 The Court of Appeal agreed with the Judge and dismissed the appeal.
3 Section 112 of the WC does not permit a third party to appear before the family justice court hearing ancillary matters and ask it to adjudicate the third party’s claim to the alleged “matrimonial asset”: at [34].

4 A third party claiming an interest in any property alleged to be a matrimonial asset should commence independent civil proceedings against either or both the spouses for a declaration as to his interest and other relief: at [54].

5 If an alleged matrimonial asset is legally owned by a third party, a few options are available: (at [56]):

(a)     First, the spouse who claims the property to be a matrimonial asset may obtain legally binding confirmation from the third party that this is so.
(b)     If this is contested, either that spouse or the other who is asserting that the property belongs beneficially to the third party would have to start a separate legal action to have the rights in the property finally determined, vis-à-vis the third party. 
(c)     The third possibility would be for the spouse to drop his or her claim that the property is a matrimonial asset and allow the s 112 proceedings to continue without it.
(d)     Alternatively, that spouse may ask the court to determine whether the asset is a matrimonial asset without involving the third party’s participation at all or making an order directly affecting the property.

6 If the property is in the name of one of the spouses who claims to hold the property on trust for a third party, and where no order is sought by or against the third party, it is permissible for the court to make an order exercising its powers under s 112, but the third party will not be bound by such an order. On the other hand, one or both spouses may seek an order binding the third party. Once such an order is sought, a separate set of proceedings would have to be issued: at [58].

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.