S'pore man contests divorce, claims to have heart issues 9 times before 9 hearings, calls for ambulance during a hearing

A couple in Singapore saw a breakdown in their marriage in 2019.

The wife alleged that the man had accused her of having an affair with her classmate and had become violent.

He allegedly kicked her in the stomach, held her up by her neck and pushed her forcefully against a window without a grill.

The woman filed a police report after this.

The man's suspicions continued, resulting in the woman agreeing to a prenatal paternity test for their younger child.

During this period, the man allegedly pawned her jewellery to pay for the paternity test and humiliated her by telling friends and their church members that the baby was not his.

The test revealed that the child was his.

The relationship would only continue to deteriorate to the point where she had apply for a personal protection order (PPO) after he allegedly assaulted her again.

Despite the PPO, the woman claimed he continued to engage in a pattern of stalking and threatening behaviour, followed her around in their home and in public, and attempted to forcibly take her son from her, leading to multiple police reports.

On Mar. 16, 2022, the parties signed an agreement, witnessed by a solicitor, stating that the woman agreed to withdraw her PPO application in exchange for the man's promise of good behaviour.

However, if the man breached the good behaviour clauses, the divorce would proceed by consent with specific arrangements for property division.

The woman withdrew her PPO application on Mar. 22.

On Mar. 28, there was another altercation near the solicitor’s premises.

The woman filed for divorce on Aug. 4, 2022.

The man would, however, contest the divorce.

The man filed a striking out application on Jun. 12, 2023, which was dismissed.

He then appealed this decision to the District Court and subsequently to the High Court, but his appeal was once again dismissed on Jul. 29, 2024.

The contested divorce hearing was originally scheduled for Aug. 13, 2024, but was adjourned nine times — each time the man claimed to be suffering from heart ailments.

When the hearing finally proceeded on Sep. 9, 2024, it was conducted remotely to accommodate the man's medical condition.

However, the man had pre-arranged for an ambulance to arrive during the hearing.

The hearing was terminated when the ambulance arrived.

Judgement

Finally, on Mar. 5, 2025, after more than two-and-a-half years after the divorce writ was filed, the district judge granted an interim judgment in favour of the woman, finding that the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to the man's unreasonable behaviour.

The man appealed against this decision.

On Jan. 22, 2026, the day before the appeal, the appellant suffered another heart failure, and he emailed a medical report to the registry stating that he was not able to attend court.

The woman appeared in person in the appeal.

In the judgement, Judge Choo Han Teck noted that the man may have a weak heart, but it "stoutly persisted in perfectly timed failures — nine times — either on the eve of court proceedings or on the day of the proceedings itself; and even once in the midst of a hearing when it appeared that the proceedings were not going his way".

The judge noted that his medical report could only say that the man “complained of chest pain at rest”, which the judge said, it appeared to him to be a "polite way of saying that there were no clinical symptoms, and without further tests, the attending physician could only take the appellant’s word for it".

"It was, thus not an emergency," the judge added.

Choo further noted that while the medical certificate was authentic, the background of the man's serial heart failures led him to conclude that it was more than a physical impediment to the man attending court.

Choo said the woman and her two young children must carry on with their lives without this matter "blighting them without end".

He said it seemed that there was no merit in the appeal, and that the man must accept that when it is time to end, it is best to have a "graceful end, so that everyone, including himself, may begin anew".

The judge then dismissed the appeal.

Image from Canva and Wikipedia