JUDGMENT

Raja Segaran S Krishnan JC:

A. Introduction

[1] This Judgment concerns an interlocutory application filed in pending proceedings to vary the terms of the decree nisi relating to the parties' children. The application does not call for determination of the substantive variation itself. What falls for decision is whether leave ought to be granted to file a further affidavit after the earlier affidavit exchange had been treated as finalised.

[2] The application arises in a context familiar to chambers practice. Affidavit proceedings often progress through an initial sequence of affidavits, followed by case management directions closing affidavit exchange and fixing timelines for submissions. Thereafter, one party seeks to place before the court a further affidavit, sometimes to repair deficiencies, sometimes to introduce later developments, and sometimes to regularise the record. The recurring nature of that problem makes it necessary for the court to state clearly the principles that govern such applications.

[3] The immediate dispute concerns updated documentary material said to bear on a component of the children's care expenses. The procedural objection is that the affidavit stage had closed, directions for submissions had already been given, and the application came too late. The evidential answer is that the proposed material reflects supervening events and does not alter the underlying case already advanced in the variation proceedings.

[4] The real controversy is therefore Whether the proposed affidavit is, in substance, an impermissible reopening of a concluded affidavit exchange, or whether it is a confined and justified evidential update that may properly be received under the court's procedural and inherent powers. That issue matters because it determines not only whether the present material may be admitted, but also the proper balance between procedural discipline and just adjudication on an accurate record.

B. Material Facts And Procedural History

[5] The parties' marriage was dissolved by joint petition. Under the decree nisi, provision was made, among other things, for reasonable access in relation to the two children and for the costs of the children's living expenses to be borne equally by the parties. That forms the background to the later application to vary the decree.

[6] The substantive variation application was filed on 29 July 2024 and bears encl 13. The notice of application seeks, among other relief, variation of the relevant paragraphs of the decree in relation to access and the children's living expenses. The same notice expressly sets out detailed proposed changes to the financial arrangements concerning the children.

[7] In the affidavit filed in support of that variation application, an estimate of the children's expenses had already been set out. The evidential materials now before the court show that the earlier expense structure already contained a component relating to the care of the children by the wife's parents, benchmarked against the cost of a domestic helper and associated expenses. The present application therefore arises against an existing care-cost component already embedded in the variation case.

[8] The affidavit history then became extensive. At case management on 2 September 2025, leave was granted for the filing of a 3rd affidavit in reply, dated 26 September 2025, and affidavit filing was thereafter treated as finalised. The materials before the court record that the affidavit was filed accordingly.

[9] On 3 October 2025, a 4th affidavit in reply was filed without prior leave. At the next case management on 7 October 2025, directions were given for written submissions. The matter then moved, procedurally, beyond the ordinary affidavit stage.

[10] The proceedings did not then proceed directly to disposal. On 15 December 2025, the court was informed that settlement discussions were under way. The papers also record repeated requests for extensions of time in relation to submissions