VWB v VWA [2023] SGHCF 13

Outcome: Orders Made

Facts

1          Husband was ordered to pay outstanding arrears of $65,567.64 in monthly instalments of $5,000 for the maintenance for the two children and the former wife (“the EMO”). Husband applied for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal against the EMO and a stay of the EMO pending that appeal. An extension of time to 27 March 2023 was granted, while the prayer for a stay was dismissed.

Court’s Decision:

2          Four factors are relevant in deciding whether to grant an extension of time: the length of the delay; the reasons for the delay; the chance of the appeal succeeding if time were extended; and degree of prejudice caused to the other party. All four factors are of equal importance, to be balanced against one another, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case.: at [5].

3           The length of delay was short, the reasons for the delay were reasonable, and it could not be said that there was no prospect in the appeal or that the wife would be prejudiced. The extension of time was therefore granted.: at [19].

4           There is no issue of the appeal being rendered nugatory because there remains an undisputed sum owing arising from the division of the couple’s matrimonial assets; adjustments may be made for any difference on appeal. The husband’s argument does not reveal any special circumstances to stay the EMO pending appeal.: at [21].

5          The term “show payment” is a short form used at the FJC for a litigant to show the court proof of payment, such as a receipt, or a statement of account. Such an order is typically used where a party liable to pay maintenance has a history of non-compliance. This is because the court has the power to imprison for the non-payment of maintenance under s 71(1)(b) of the Women’s Charter, and the requirement to show proof of payment secures his presence in court. The court may punish him if he does not pay; and the court’s power to do so incentivises compliance.: at [23].

6          The effect of the judge’s order in suspending the show payment was to suspend the imposition of the 5-day imprisonment term that would follow from the husband’s default in showing proof of payment. This did not abrogate the liability to pay. The court merely withheld the exercise of its power to imprison. But the two are linked, as the power to imprison girds the fulfilment of the obligation to pay. It functions as a mode of securing execution on the prior maintenance order. Conversely, where a stay of execution has been granted, the court would not exercise its power under s 71(1)(b) of the Women’s Charter. In the present case, the suspension, while not intended to amount to a stay, had the practical effect of a stay. This link, and whether there are any grounds for a stay, should be borne in mind when adjustments are made to the enforcement of maintenance orders. Maintenance orders are premised on the ongoing and immediate needs of the particular family; hardship may arise where arrears remain unpaid.: at [23].

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.