http://thecourtroom.stomp.com.sg/st...national_sues_sporean_exbf_to_return_dog.html
Chinese national sues S'porean ex-BF over dog
14 Apr 2011
SOURCE: The Straits Times
DOG DAYS IN COURT
RETURN the dog – or face court action.
This is what Chinese national Li Jun, 24, states in a letter of demand sent by her lawyer on Monday to her Singaporean ex-boyfriend V. Vicknesh, 27.
The dog at the centre of the dispute is a 15-month-old golden retriever called Mikah, bought for $850 last September.
Then, the duo were a couple. When they broke up in November, they agreed to share custody of their pet on a weekly basis.
Ms Li claims Mr Vicknesh has breached a signed agreement they made at the Woodlands Neighbourhood Police Centre on March 23 this year.
Ms Li, a part-time Chinese-language teacher, said he did not return Mikah to her last month when it was her turn to keep the dog.
He allegedly told her Mikah was not with him. This led her to lodge a police report as a record for further civil action and for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to locate the dog if it was missing.
The pair, who live separately in Woodlands, had been going steady for more than three years before they broke up.
Ms Li, who is represented by lawyer R.S. Bajwa, said she was unfamiliar with dogs initially, and that Mr Vicknesh chose the retriever for its character and friendly temperament.
She felt very hurt when they broke up, but consented to share custody of Mikah with him.
But her mood has hardened since, and she now wants complete custody of the dog.
“I can’t sleep. I used to go on Facebook to put up Mikah’s pictures, but now I do not even want to go there to look at the pictures, because it makes me sleepless, and I need to work,” she said.
Mr Vicknesh, when contacted yesterday, said he would decide what to do after seeing the letter sent by her lawyer.
“I do not think she is going to get to keep the dog as it has grown big and would not be allowed to be kept in an HDB flat,” he said.
Like Ms Li, he lives in an HDB flat and not landed property, which can house such dogs, he added. He said he keeps Mikah in an animal shelter and visits it almost daily after work, paying about $400 a month for its upkeep.
He did not want to return the dog to Ms Li as he was upset she had registered it for a licence and placed a microchip in it without his knowledge.
“I was speechless. I had taken Mikah to the vet for a yearly vaccination when I learnt about the licence,” he said.
He feared that as she had registered for the licence, she would claim to be the owner.
This is the second case in recent months where ex-couples have fought over the custody of their dogs.
Last week, Justice Chan Seng Onn issued the grounds for his judgment awarding possession of a cross-terrier to Ms Tan Huey Kuan, instead of to her ex-boyfriend Tan Kok Chye, in a court case heard in February.
Ms Tan, a senior accounts manager based here, and Dr Tan, a United States-based surgeon, had adopted the dog, Sasha, in 2008 when they lived in Alabama.
They subsequently ended their relationship and she returned here with Sasha and later sought a High Court order for its custody.
Justice Chan, in his judgment grounds, said he considered all the affidavit evidence before him and “on many counts, the balance weighed heavily in favour of (Ms Tan) having possession of Sasha”.
He declared both were joint owners, but custody was to remain with Ms Tan.
But Dr Tan is appealing against the judgment, a move which shows they “intend to continue relentlessly with their battle for the possession of the dog”, said Justice Chan.
He noted that Ms Tan had said Dr Tan’s main issue was with her, and not the dog. “He wanted me back. He did not make a big issue of wanting Sasha back.”
Justice Chan said the broken relationship should not be allowed to get in the way of an amicable settlement.
He urged the parties to consider mediation before heading to the Court of Appeal.
“With good sense prevailing, I believe that there is a fair chance for the dispute to be resolved amicably through mediation,” he said.