fc_judgments: 100
Data source: lawnet.sg/lawnet/web/lawnet/free-resources
This data as json
| _id | _item_id | tags | date | court | case-number | title | citation | url | counsel | timestamp | coram | html | _commit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100 | d2ec1c4a1504e5ee9f9b206ca4cc491cbabf7151 | [
"Family Law \u2013 Procedure \u2013 Discovery",
"Family Law \u2013 Procedure \u2013 Interrogatories"
] |
2024-10-14 | Family Court | Divorce No 2861 of 2023 (Summons No 2758 of 2024) | XEH v XEI | [2024] SGFC 93 | https://www.lawnet.sg:443/lawnet/web/lawnet/free-resources?p_p_id=freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet&p_p_lifecycle=1&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&_freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet_action=openContentPage&_freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet_docId=%2FJudgment%2F32433-SSP.xml | [
"The plaintiff in person and unrepresented",
"Michael Han Hean Juan (Han & Lu Law Chambers LLP) for the defendant."
] |
2024-11-11T16:00:00Z[GMT] | Soh Kian Peng | <root><head><title>XEH v XEI</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> XEH <em>v</em> XEI </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/32433-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 93</a></span></h2><table id="info-table"><tbody><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Case Number</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">Divorce No 2861 of 2023 (Summons No 2758 of 2024)</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Decision Date</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">14 October 2024</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Tribunal/Court</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">Family Court</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Coram</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> Soh Kian Peng </td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Counsel Name(s)</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> The plaintiff in person and unrepresented; Michael Han Hean Juan (Han & Lu Law Chambers LLP) for the defendant. </td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Parties</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> XEH — XEI </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Procedure</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Discovery</span></p> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Procedure</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Interrogatories</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">14 October 2024</p></td><td><p class="Judg-Date-Reserved">Judgment reserved</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p> <p class="Judg-Author"> Assistant Registrar Soh Kian Peng:</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1 SUM 2758/2024 (“SUM 2758”) was the Husband’s application for discovery and interrogatories. I heard the application on 4<sup>th</sup> October 2024 and reserved judgment. This is my decision.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 Parties were married on 17 December 2008. Almost a decade later, they welcomed their first son into their family. Four years later, in 2021, their second son was born.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 The details as to how exactly the marriage broke down are murky, but what is clear is that the Wife filed for divorce on 19 June 2023. Interim Judgment was granted on the 1<sup>st</sup> of November 2023 on the basis of the Husband’s Defence and Counterclaim.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 Parties then set course for a hearing of the ancillary matters. It is in this context that the Husband had taken out SUM 2758. He was represented, at the hearing, by Mr Michael Han (“Mr Han”). The Wife, on the other hand, was unrepresented.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 During the hearing, Mr Han highlighted that some of the documents sought had been produced by the Wife during mediation. The Wife, however, declined to produce those documents at the voluntary disclosure stage.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 As I had pointed out to Mr Han, I did not think it was open to me to take this into account – whatever had been raised in mediation should remain in mediation. I thus proceeded to assess SUM 2758 on its merits, taking into account any documents which the Wife may have disclosed in her affidavits.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 I shall deal first with the items relating to interrogatories.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 At the hearing, Mr Han indicated that the Husband was no longer pursuing Items 4 and 5 of the interrogatories. As such, I will not deal with them. These were the remaining interrogatories that the Husband wanted the Wife to answer:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">1 In whose name is the motor vehicle bearing the registration number of SNM xxx registered under.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">When was the motor vehicle purchased, how much is the outstanding loan, if any, what is the monthly instalment payments, and what is the current market value of the motor vehicle?</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">2 What are the surrender value(s) of the various insurance policies as listed therein? (with reference to paras 10(a) – (f) of the Wife’s AOM)</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">3 Whether the Plaintiff had invested in cryptocurrencies or any related investment of the same nature?</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">If yes, when were they purchased, the amount they were purchased for, what is the current balance/holdings and what is the market (trading) value of the investment(s)?</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">6 Whether [X] has a company account.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">If yes, please provide details of the bank account number, balances and statements from January 2020 to August 2024.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 The Wife is the sole director-shareholder of [X], a company incorporated in Singapore that carries on a business as a travel agency. The interrogatories which the Husband pursues relates to information concerning the Wife’s assets and finances.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 The Wife does not dispute that she had not answered any of these interrogatories. Her real quarrel was whether she <em>should</em> have to answer them. She says that she should not have to do so.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 In my judgment, these interrogatories (above at [8]) are all relevant and necessary to the hearing of the ancillary matters. They go towards issues such as maintenance, determining the extent of the Wife’s assets and assessing which assets fell into the matrimonial pool, and the value of assets included in the matrimonial pool.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 I will therefore allow the Husband’s request for the Wife to answer the interrogatories as set out in Items 1, 2, 3, and 6.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 I turn now to deal with the items relating to discovery.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 Item 1 was a request for the Wife to produce financial documents in relation to the company [X] of which she was the sole director. These included documents such as financial statements, the balance sheet, as well as all company bank account statements.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 The principles relating to the disclosure of company documents are set out in the decision of the High Court in <em>ACW v ACX</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/[2014] SGHC 0053.xml')">[2014] SGHC 53</a> at [20] citing <em>B v B (Matrimonial Proceedings: Discovery)</em> [1978] Fam 181 at 193 – 194. In deciding whether to order disclosure, the court must consider whether the spouse has control over the company such that they are able to produce the documents sought: <em>WWS v WWT</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31488-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 24</a> at [44].</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 In the present case, the ACRA statement discloses that the Wife is the sole director and sole shareholder of [X]. It is clear that the Wife has control over the company such that she will be able to produce the documents that the Husband is asking for. I also add that these documents are certainly relevant and necessary to the disposal of the ancillary matters – they will allow the shares of [X] to be valued.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 I therefore allow the request in Item 1.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 Item 2 was a request for the Wife to produce documentation relating to the insurance policies listed in her Affidavit of Assets and Means (“AOM”) and statements of their respective surrender values.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19 Mr Han explained that while the Wife had, in her AOM, disclosed some documents relating to the insurance policies, those documents did not disclose their surrender values.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20 I will allow the request in Item 2. These documents are relevant and necessary to the hearing of the ancillary matters. It would show, amongst other things, the surrender values of these insurance policies – this would have a bearing on issues such as the valuation of assets that are included in the matrimonial pool.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21 Item 3 was a request for official payslips from X for the period January to June 2024. Mr Han had narrowed the period of disclosure that the Husband was seeking, taking into account the fact that the Wife had already disclosed some of her payslips from X.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22 I will allow the request in Item 3. The Wife’s payslips are certainly relevant and necessary to determining issues such as maintenance.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23 Items 4 and 5 was a request for the following bank statements for the period April 2023 to June 2024:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_23-p2_a"></a>(a) POSB Everyday Savings Account ending -9;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_23-p2_b"></a>(b) UOB One Account ending -1.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24 Mr Han noted that the Wife had disclosed her statement in respect of both accounts for the month of May 2024. He clarified that the Husband was only seeking the Wife’s bank statements for April 2023 to June 2024, excluding the month of May 2024.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25 I will allow the request in Items 4 and 5. The bank statements are relevant and necessary in that they shed light on the Wife’s finances in the months leading up to the filing of the divorce and after the grant of the interim judgment. This would have a bearing on issues such as whether there had been any dissipation of matrimonial assets, or maintenance.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_26"></a>26 Item 6 was a request for CPF transaction history for the past 1 year from April 2023 to June 2024.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_27"></a>27 I will allow the request. This document is indeed relevant and necessary. It will shed light on the Wife’s earning capacity (see <em>AAE v AAF</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/64155-M.xml')">[2009] 3 SLR 827</a> at [19]).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_28"></a>28 Item 7 was a request for the Wife’s Notice of Assessment from the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (“IRAS”) for the past 4 years.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_29"></a>29 I do not think the relevance and necessity of the Wife’s IRAS statements can be seriously disputed – it will go towards showing her income, and will have a bearing on issues such as maintenance.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_30"></a>30 I will therefore allow the request in Item 7.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_31"></a>31 I come now to Item 8. This was a request for documents relating to a car allegedly belonging to the Wife. The Husband had pursued an interrogatory in relation to this car (see [8] above).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_32"></a>32 I will allow the request in Item 8. The documents sought would go towards showing whether the car indeed belonged to the Wife, and the value of the said car, taking into account any loans and payments made towards insurance. This would have a bearing on issues such as determining the pool of matrimonial assets.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_33"></a>33 It is therefore ordered that:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_33-p2_a"></a>(a) The Wife shall answer Items 1, 2, 3, and 6 of the interrogatories as set out in Annex A of SUM 2758, on affidavit, to the best of her knowledge, information and belief, pursuant to Rule 69 of the Family Justice Rules 2014;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_33-p2_b"></a>(b) The Wife shall state on affidavit, pursuant to Rule 63 of the Family Justice Rules 2014, in respect of each of the following documents sought in discovery, as listed in Annex A of SUM 2758, whether the same is in her possession, custody or power, and if not then in her possession, custody or power, when she parted with it and what has become of it;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_33-p2_c"></a>(c) The Wife shall exhibit, in the affidavit, a copy of each of the documents that are in her possession, custody or power. If any of the documents are not in her custody, power or possession, she is to state the reasons why, together with supporting documentation for her explanation (if any);</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_33-p2_d"></a>(d) The Wife is to file her compliance affidavit by the 8<sup>th</sup> of November 2024.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_34"></a>34 I shall hear parties on costs. Submissions on costs shall come in by way of letter, and shall be limited to a maximum of 3 pages each. This is to be done no later than 25 October 2024.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_35"></a>35 The time limited for filing an appeal shall begin to run from the date of this judgment.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_36"></a>36 It remains for me to thank Mr Han for his able assistance.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_1_1" id="Ftn_1">[note: 1]</a></sup>Statement of Claim dated 19 June 2023.</p></div></content></root> | 1837 |
Links from other tables
- 1 row from _item in fc_judgments_version