Divorced woman turns to court to get ‘her dogs’ back from ex-husband, fails

However, the clinic told him that his ex-wife had instructed them not to disclose any information to him.

The defendant said this act was a clear act of bad faith that failed to consider the needs of the dogs.

“It dawned on me that, like her ex-husband (Mr A), she is merely using them as a pawn to annoy me,” wrote the defendant in his affidavit.

The defendant also explained that he moved out of his matrimonial home in January 2025 together with the dogs and wanted to tell his ex-wife about this. But as she had blocked him on WhatsApp, he could not reach her.

“I had no choice but to inform (my ex-wife’s) sister-in-law and her brother instead that I had moved out of the matrimonial home and I have taken X and Y with me,” wrote the defendant.

The judge found that the woman’s other ex-husband, Mr A, was the true owner of X.

However, the defendant stated that Mr A had expressly given his consent for him to have and care for X.

The judge noted WhatsApp messages between Mr A and the defendant, where Mr A said that the woman was supposed to hand over X to Mr A or pay him S$5,000 as agreed.

Mr A wrote that the woman “neglected” the dog for many days and went away and did not come back.

In the woman’s case, she stated that she should retain ownership and possession of the dogs as they were in her sole name, according to the dog licences issued to her by the Animal and Veterinary Service.

The defendant had contended that the dogs were not matrimonial assets and should not be treated as divisible. Dogs are not capable of valuation for division and should not be treated as commodities, the defendant argued.

He said that his ex-wife had always felt that the dogs belonged to him, and they had not contemplated the issue of the dogs during divorce proceedings as he did not think that was in dispute.

JUDGE’S FINDINGS

The judge referred to a High Court case involving a dispute of a dog and came to the view that dogs were matrimonial assets. As with other assets, parties could agree on how they were to be dealt with by including an order for them to be given to which party, declaring which party to own the animal, or by ordering a sale and division of the proceeds.

However, in this case, the order in the divorce proceedings did not mention the two dogs. While both sides produced evidence to show that they had cared for, paid for or contributed towards the expenses of the dogs, the judge found that the real issue was more about who was the actual legal owner of the dogs.

The woman had to prove she was the owner of the dogs, by showing, for example, that she had bought them or had been gifted the dogs by someone else. However, she was unable to provide any such evidence.

The licensing of the dogs did not confer ownership on the licensee, found the judge.

He found that the defendant was responsible for bringing Y into their then-household, a fact confirmed by his witness who stated she had given the dog to him.

As for X, Mr A was its true owner, stated the judge.

He found that the woman had failed to prove that the defendant had intentionally breached a court order.

For X, the defendant genuinely believed that his ex-wife was not the rightful owner of X, as Mr A had told him that he could keep X.

Y had been given to the defendant.

The judge noted that there was no evidence that the former couple had “applied their minds” during the divorce proceedings as to who the dogs should go to, or how they were to be dealt with.

There was no evidence that the two dogs were featured in the woman’s statement of claim.

Such an ambiguous clause should be interpreted in favour of the defendant, and his conduct is excusable under Section 21 of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act.

It states that a person is not guilty of contempt of court if the court is satisfied that their failure or refusal to comply with an order was attributable to an “honest and reasonable failure” by the person to understand an obligation imposed on the person.

The judge awarded costs of S$3,500 to the defendant.