View Article - Singapore Academy of Law
View Article - Singapore Academy of Law
View Article - Singapore Academy of Law
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
286<br />
<strong>Singapore</strong> <strong>Academy</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Law</strong> Journal (2003)<br />
differing views in two High Court decisions, in this regard—at Section 6.4.3<br />
below)<br />
6.3 If the civil suit and the ancillary matters need not be<br />
heard by the same court<br />
182 If, after considering all the factors set out in Section 6.1(a)-(d)<br />
above, it appears that the civil suit and the ancillary matters need not be<br />
heard by the same court, then the two suits may either proceed<br />
concurrently, or one set <strong>of</strong> proceedings may be stayed until the other is<br />
disposed <strong>of</strong>.<br />
183 An example <strong>of</strong> where the latter has been done is the case <strong>of</strong> Tian<br />
Ah Poon (m.w.) v Teo Guan Seng and Anor. 112 The wife in this case had<br />
filed a divorce petition on 22 February 2001. A decree nisi was granted<br />
on 23 April 2002, and the ancillary matters were adjourned to be heard<br />
later. On 9 April 2002, the wife, a shareholder in a company <strong>of</strong> which the<br />
husband was a director and shareholder, commenced an action in the<br />
High Court (in OS 488 <strong>of</strong> 2002) under Section 216 (Personal remedies in<br />
cases <strong>of</strong> oppression or injustice) <strong>of</strong> the Companies Act (Cap. 50) against<br />
the company itself, the husband (who was a director and shareholder <strong>of</strong><br />
the company), and other directors and shareholders <strong>of</strong> the company (5<br />
defendants in all). The wife alleged that the husband had deliberately<br />
increased his shareholding in the company to dilute her interest in the<br />
same, and prayed for, inter alia, an order that the husband purchase all<br />
the shares owned by the wife at a fair value to be determined by the court<br />
or by an independent valuer. The wife then applied to transfer the<br />
divorce proceedings to the High Court and have it consolidated with OS<br />
488 <strong>of</strong> 2002. The High Court did not make the order for transfer and<br />
consolidation, but instead ordered that the ancillary matters in the Family<br />
Court be stayed pending the final determination (and any appeal<br />
therefrom) <strong>of</strong> the High Court suit. 113<br />
184 Generally, if a party starts a civil suit in connection with the 3 rd<br />
party issue (either before or after the divorce petition is filed), and the<br />
matter is not resolved (or not close to being resolved) before the ancillary<br />
matters are adjourned to chambers for hearing, and there is no<br />
application for the civil suit to also be heard by the Family Court, the<br />
Family Court will, in all probability, adjourn the hearing <strong>of</strong> the ancillary<br />
112 unreported, Divorce Petition No. 600679/2001<br />
113 Order made 24 June 2002. No judgment was written by the High Court in this matter.