fc_judgments: 38

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
38	79c3690fd1b46955f3a6994ae997321f4b31a757	[ "Civil Procedure \u2013 Discovery", "Civil Procedure \u2013 Interrogatories" ]	2024-06-07	Family Court	Divorce No 760 of 2023 (Summons No 1063 of 2024)	WYA v WYB	[2024] SGFC 37	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%2F31611-SSP.xml	[ "Lim Shu Fen (JS Law Chambers LLP) for the plaintiff", "Charmaine Chua Qi Shan (PKWA Law Practice LLC) for the defendant" ]	2024-06-18T16:00:00Z[GMT]	Soh Kian Peng	<root><head><title>WYA v WYB</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> WYA <em>v</em> WYB </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31611-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 37</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 760 of 2023 (Summons No 1063 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">07 June 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"> Lim Shu Fen (JS Law Chambers LLP) for the plaintiff; Charmaine Chua Qi Shan (PKWA Law Practice LLC) 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"> WYA — WYB </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Civil Procedure</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Discovery</span></p> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Civil 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">7 June 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-Heading-1">Introduction</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1 These are the facts as I have found them in the Statement of Particulars (“SOP”). Parties were married on 30 October 1999. They had two children. It was the Wife who filed for divorce on 22 February 2023, on grounds that the Husband had behaved in a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with him.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 After the filing of the divorce, interim judgment was obtained on 22 August 2023. Parties subsequently filed their Affidavit of Means and Assets (“AOMs”). Thereafter, parties were directed to exchange their voluntary requests for discovery and interrogatories.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 The Wife, being dissatisfied with the extent of the Husband’s disclosure, took out the present application in SUM 1063 of 2024 (“SUM 1063”). I heard SUM 1063 on 28 May 2024. This is my decision.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Wife’s Request for Discovery</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 The Wife had sought discovery in respect of 12 categories of documents. At the hearing, her counsel, Ms Lim, confirmed that she would not be proceeding with Items 2, 6, 7. I will therefore deal with the rest of the items which were proceeded with.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 Item 1 was a request for the Husband to provide documentary evidence to prove that his insurance policy with Prudential was still in force, or whether it had matured or been surrendered.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 Ms Lim argued that these documents were relevant and necessary for the ancillary matters hearing. She explained that these documents were needed to ascertain exactly what had happened with this particular insurance policy. That was because the Husband had, in his response to the Wife’s first request for discovery, stated that he could not remember what had happened with this policy.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span> However, in his response to the Wife’s second request for discovery, the Husband stated that the policy had been terminated in the same year that it had been purchased because he did not find the coverage suitable.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 In response, counsel for the Husband, Ms Chua, argued that the documents were not within the Husband’s possession, custody or power to obtain, and that in any case, given that many years had passed since the policy had been terminated, it would be impractical to order that the Husband produce these documents, or to attempt to obtain them.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 I allow the request in respect of Item 1. There can be no quarrel as to the relevance or necessity of this item. It would allow the Wife to ascertain what had happened to this policy, and take a position on whether it too should be included in the matrimonial pool of assets.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 In any case, it was not open to the Husband to sidestep his obligation to give disclosure with the mere assertion that such documents were not in his possession, or that he could not obtain those documents. In that connection, I find it particularly puzzling that the Husband had initially stated that he could not recall such an insurance policy, but was later able to state that it had been terminated in the same year it had been purchased.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 I turn now to Item 3. There were two parts to this request. The first was that the Husband disclose his CPF statements evidencing the investments that he had made using funds from his CPF ordinary account. The second, was that the Husband provide an updated statement showing the current value of all such investments.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 Ms Lim argued that the disclosure of this document was relevant and necessary to determine how much money had been taken from the Husband’s CPF ordinary account for investments. She said this document was necessary because the documents which the Husband had disclosed was insufficient for the Wife to determine exactly how much the Husband had taken from his CPF account and used for investments. This was an issue that was directly relevant to determining the pool of matrimonial assets.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 The Husband had disclosed three documents.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_3" id="Ftn_3_1"><sup>[note: 3]</sup></a></span> The first was a statement from First Sentier Investors which showed the value of his holdings of his shares in various funds as of 31 December 2023. The second, was a CPF statement showing the amounts available to the Husband for investment. The third was a statement of the Husband’s CPF Investment account with DBS dated 16 September 2023.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 Ms Chua made two points in response. First, that the Husband had already disclosed all the documents in his possession, custody and power. Second, that the documents which had already been disclosed did paint a full picture of all the investments which the Husband had funded using his CPF money – it was therefore not necessary to order the Husband to produce the documents which the Wife sought.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 In respect of Item 3, I will only order that the Husband provide an updated copy of his holdings in his CPF investment account with DBS as of 31<sup>st</sup> December 2023. I did not think that it was relevant or necessary, for the disposal of ancillary matters, to trace exactly how much money the Husband had taken from his CPF accounts for investment. The more pertinent issue, in my view, was the value of such investments that had been made by the Husband using his CPF money. To that end, it was clear to me, based on the documents disclosed by the Husband which I have described above, that further investments had indeed been made. It was therefore relevant and necessary that an updated copy be provided.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 I come now to Items 4 and 5. I shall deal with them together. The Wife had gone through the Husband’s credit card statements. There were a number of transactions for amounts that had been either debited from, or credited to his credit card. The Wife is asking that the Husband disclose the documents supporting why such transactions had been made. She is also asking that if these transactions were for trading or investment purposes, that the Husband provide monthly statements for those trading or investment accounts for the past three years.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 Insofar as the Wife’s request for documents to support the various transactions that had been made was concerned, this appeared to me to be a rather roundabout way of asking for documents relating to the Husband’s alleged trading account(s). As I pointed out to Ms Lim during the hearing, if what she was really after were the monthly statement of accounts of the Husband’s trading accounts, then it was unnecessary to ask for documents evidencing the transfer of funds to and from this account.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 In light of the above, I disallow the Wife’s request in respect of Items 4 and 5. Instead, the Husband is to disclose the monthly statements of any trading accounts in his name from 2021 to present. In this vein, I note that Ms Chua had argued that the Husband did not dispute that he had a trading account, but it was closed in 2021. Further, the Husband having forgotten his account number and password, could not obtain or produce any statements. However, as Ms Lim quite rightly pointed out, if the Husband is indeed unable to regain access to his trading account, he should provide the necessary documents to support his assertion.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 I turn now to Item 8. Ms Lim explained that this request was based on the Husband’s assertion that he would give his parents $8000 each month. This was broken down into transfers of $3000, $3000 and $2000. Insofar as Item 8 was concerned, the Wife wanted documents from the Husband in relation to the monthly transfers of $2000. The Husband had disclosed documents and explained the transfers of $3000, but there were scant details, if any, concerning this monthly transfer of $2000. In other words, there was nothing to demonstrate that the Husband was indeed giving his parents that sum of money.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19 Ms Lim submitted that these documents were relevant and necessary to allowing the Wife to trace where this monthly transfers of $2000 had gone. This tracing exercise was necessary to determine if the Husband had other undisclosed bank accounts.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20 Ms Chua’s response was that it was not necessary to order discovery because the regularity of the transfers which started in 2021 supported the Husband’s assertion that these sums were indeed meant for his parents. In any case, ordering disclosure would incur unnecessary costs.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21 I allow the Wife’s request in respect of Item 8. It was clear to me that these documents would allow the Wife to determine whether these transfers of $2000 were clearly meant for the Husband’s parents, or whether this sum had been squirreled away into undisclosed bank account(s). This was directly relevant to the issue of division of assets.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22 I turn now to address Item 9 which was a request for monthly bank accounts of Company X. Ms Lim argued that these documents were relevant and necessary for determining the Husband’s earning capacity and the assessment of his income.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23 Given that the documents sought were company documents, the principles governing the disclosure of company documents are relevant, and apply in the present case. As was stated 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):</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">20 More directly, a helpful summary of the relevant principles relating to discovery of documents belonging to a company of which the husband was a director and shareholder can be found in B v B at 193–194:</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(a) The documents of a company are in the legal possession of the company. If they are or have been in the actual physical possession of a director who is a party to litigation they must be disclosed by that director, if relevant to the litigation, even though he holds them as servant or agent of the company in his capacity as an officer of the company.</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(b) If the director who is a party to the litigation does not have physical possession of the documents, the question of fact of whether the documents are within the power of the director arises. “Power” in this context means “the enforceable right to inspect or obtain possession or control of the document” in the personal capacity of the director. This is in contradistinction to the right to inspect vested in a director in his capacity as a director. Without the consent of the company, the director has no right to inspect the documents. Much will depend on the share structure of the company.</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(c) <b>If the company is the alter ego of such a director so that he has unfettered control of the company’s affairs, he must disclose and produce all relevant documents in the possession of the company.</b> Where the company is not the alter ego of a director, the factors to be considered are:</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-3">(i) the extent of the shareholding of the husband;</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-3">(ii) whether it amounts to control of the company;</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-3">(iii) whether the minority shareholders are adverse to him;</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-3">(iv) how the board of directors is constituted; and</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-3">(v) whether there is any objection by the board to disclosure of any of the documents sought.</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(d) A very wide range of issues are relevant in proceedings relating to ancillary matters. The court has to assess what the husband is shown to have, but also what could reasonably be made available to him. In many cases, audited accounts of companies of which the husband is a shareholder will be sufficient, together with full disclosure of all the husband’s personal financial records. But there are cases when the court will go behind company accounts and order discovery of company books and documents. It is not usual, however, for the court to take this course unless there is evidence before it from accountants or other experts that the published accounts of the company cannot be relied upon.</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(e) Where relevant documents in the possession of a company are disclosed by a director as being in his custody or power, the court has a discretion whether or not to order production of them. In exercising the discretion, the court will have regard to all the circumstances and balance the relevance and importance of the documents and the hardship likely to be caused to the wife by non-production against any prejudice to the husband and third parties likely to be caused by production.</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(f) It has not hitherto been the practice of the court to order production of company documents to which the board of directors objects on affidavit, provided that the court is satisfied that the objection is not contrived for the purpose of frustrating the powers of the court. The court will not in the exercise of its discretion order parties to do that which they have no power to do. The court will not order production unless it is satisfied that production is necessary either for disposing fairly of the issues between the parties or for saving costs.</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(g) Where the wife cannot obtain documents on discovery, she may be able to apply for leave to issue a subpoena against the secretary or other officers of the company to produce relevant documents.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24 In short, if the Husband has physical possession of the company documents which are sought, he must produce them. If the Husband does not have physical possession of those documents, then it must be shown that those documents are within his power – meaning that the Husband has the right to inspect or obtain possession of the document. This can be established in a situation where, for example, it can be shown that the company is the alter ego of the Husband.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25 In this connection, Ms Lim argued that Company X was indeed the alter ego of the Husband because he had intermingled funds belonging to the company with his own account.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_26"></a>26 However, as I had pointed out to Ms Lim, and as I had observed in <em>WWS v WWT</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31488-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 24</a> (“<em>WWS</em>”) at [44], there is a subtle difference between the idea of a company being an alter ego in the context of discovery proceedings as opposed to piercing the corporate veil. The former is concerned with whether the party in question has control over documents such that they can be compelled to disclose them in an application for discovery. The latter, however, deals with questions of liability. Given this difference, I did not think that the intermingling of funds, by itself, was sufficient for me to draw the inference that Company X was indeed the Husband’s alter ego such that he had control over the documents that were sought. In any event, the Husband was not the sole shareholder and director of Company X. As stated in his reply affidavit to this summons, his father, who was the other director, held 80% of the shares.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_4" id="Ftn_4_1"><sup>[note: 4]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_27"></a>27 Apart from this, Ms Lim had pointed to the fact that the Husband had disclosed some of Company X’s bank account statements as proof that these bank statements were indeed in the Husband’s physical possession or that he could readily obtain them.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_5" id="Ftn_5_1"><sup>[note: 5]</sup></a></span> There is much force to this argument. I noted that the Husband had indeed, in his voluntary responses to the Wife’s request for discovery, disclosed some of Company X’s bank account statements.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_6" id="Ftn_6_1"><sup>[note: 6]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_28"></a>28 In any event, the more pertinent question was whether these documents were relevant or necessary for the hearing of the ancillary matters or for saving costs: <em>VTQ v VTR</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/26432-SSP.xml')">[2021] SGFC 85</a> (“<em>VTQ</em>”) at [25] – [27]. I was not satisfied that they were. Insofar as Ms Lim had argued that the bank statements were needed to assess the Husband’s income and earning capacity, I note that the Husband had already disclosed his income tax statements,<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_7" id="Ftn_7_1"><sup>[note: 7]</sup></a></span> and also provided the annual reports of Company X. These documents should provide the Wife with sufficient details as to the Husband’s earning capacity and income.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_29"></a>29 I therefore disallow the Wife’s request in respect of Item 9.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_30"></a>30 I turn now to Item 10. This was the request:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">The Defendant is to provide all relevant documents evidencing payment of director fees for [Company X] to all directors, including documents evidencing the transfers (whether by way of cheque or bank transfer) to all directors. For the director’s fees received by the Defendant, the Defendant is to provide his bank account statement evidencing the receipt of such Director’s Fees.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">In the event such a bank account is undisclosed, the Defendant is to provide monthly bank account statements (together with transaction history) for the said bank account for the past three (3) years.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_31"></a>31 Ms Lim explained that the Wife wanted these documents because she suspected the Husband of dissipating assets which should belong to the matrimonial pool. She pointed to three transfers, totalling some $330,000 which were labelled as “directors fees” from the Husband’s bank account to the company’s bank account. There was a subsequent withdrawal of $330,000 from the company’s account. Given the proximity in time of these transfers to the divorce, Ms Lim argued that these documents were relevant and necessary to determining whether assets had indeed been dissipated from the matrimonial pool.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_32"></a>32 The problem with this request was that the documents sought were company documents. And as I have found, above (at [26]), Company X was not the alter ego of the Husband. Evidence in the affidavits only showed that the Husband appeared to be able to obtain the bank statements of Company X because he had voluntarily disclosed those (above at [27]). There was therefore nothing before me to show that the Husband had possession, custody or power over these documents which were sought.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_33"></a>33 In the circumstances, I disallow the request in Item 10.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_34"></a>34 I turn now to Item 11. This was a request for documents relating to the surrender of two insurance policies in their elder daughter’s name. Ms Lim argued that these documents were necessary to determine the proceeds received from the surrender of these policies, and to allow the Wife to make the necessary submissions for those sums to be added into the pool of matrimonial assets.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_8" id="Ftn_8_1"><sup>[note: 8]</sup></a></span> In response, Ms Chua argued that the Husband could not disclose these documents because no surrender documents had been provided.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_35"></a>35 I will allow the request in respect of Item 11. It was clear to me that these documents were relevant and necessary for the ancillary matters hearing, <em>viz</em>, the issue on the division of matrimonial assets. If the Husband is unable to obtain these documents, he must explain, in his affidavit, why he is unable to do so, and to provide the necessary documentary evidence in support.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_36"></a>36 Item 12 was a request for the Husband to produce documents to support his answers to the interrogatories. I shall, in the paragraphs that follow, deal with the request in Item 12 along with the Wife’s request for interrogatories.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Wife’s Request for Interrogatories</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_37"></a>37 There were four items on the list. Ms Lim stated that the Wife would not be pursuing her request in relation to Item 3. I will therefore deal with the rest of the items that had been proceeded with.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_38"></a>38 This was the request in respect of Item 1:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">For the following withdrawals in the Defendant’s POSB Passbook Savings Account No. xxx-xxxxx-x from 9 October 2022 to 13 May 2022:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-2">Withdrawals</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(a) Withdrawal of $55,000 on 1 February 2023;</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(b) Withdrawal of $200,000 on 5 February 2023;</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(c) Withdrawal of $130,000 on 6 February 2023;</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(d) Withdrawal of $20,000 on 2 March 2023.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">The Defendant is to state the following in relation to each of the withdrawals listed above:</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(i) The purpose of the withdrawal;</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(ii) If the withdrawal is a transfer to another bank account, to state the bank account details including the name of the bank, bank account number and owner of the bank account.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">The Defendant is to provide documents in relation to such payments.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_39"></a>39 These were the answers the Husband had given in his response to the Wife’s 1<sup>st</sup> Request for interrogatories:<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_9" id="Ftn_9_1"><sup>[note: 9]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <b>Withdrawal of $55,000 on 1 February 2023:</b> This sum comprises partial payments made by customers of our client’s company, and our client transferred these payments in a lump sum to the company. Kindly find enclosed at Tab 17 the relevant page of the company’s bank account statement;</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <b>Withdrawal of $200,000 on 5 February 2023:</b> This is payment of director fees to our client’s father;</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <b>Withdrawal of $130,000 on 6 February 2023:</b> This is payment of director fees to our client’s father</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <b>Withdrawal of $20,000 on 2 March 2023:</b> This sum comprises partial payments made by customers of our client’s company, and our client transferred these payments in a lump sum to the company. Kindly find enclosed at Tab Z the relevant page of the company’s bank account statement</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_40"></a>40 In respect of Items 1(b) and (c), that is linked to Item 10 of the Wife’s request for discovery (see [30] – [33] above). The Wife suspects that this sum of $330,000 was not payment for director’s fees. That is because the sum of $330,000 was withdrawn from the company’s bank account via cheque.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_41"></a>41 Where interrogatories are concerned, it is trite that I am only concerned as to the sufficiency, and not the truth of the answers that had been given: <em>UJN v UJO</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/21836-SSP.xml')">[2018] SGFC 47</a> (“<em>UJN</em>”) at [12]. In the present case, I am satisfied that the answers given were sufficient. The Husband had explained the reasons for the transfer, and also provided the bank account details which the Wife had sought. While I note that, in respect of Items 1(b) and 1(c), the Husband did not, in his original answer, state the bank account that the money had been transferred to, he had done so in his reply affidavit to this summons.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_10" id="Ftn_10_1"><sup>[note: 10]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_42"></a>42 Having said that, I note that the Wife’s <em>true</em> concern related to the sum of $330,000 that had been withdrawn via cheque on 6 February 2023.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_11" id="Ftn_11_1"><sup>[note: 11]</sup></a></span> I will therefore order that the Husband explain why that withdrawal had been made and state who the cheque had been made in favour of. The Husband is also to provide the details of the bank account into which the cheque had been cashed in. The Husband shall also disclose the relevant documents in relation to this transaction.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_43"></a>43 I come now to Item 2. Ms Lim had confirmed that she was not proceeding with Item 2(h). This request required the Husband to explain a series of withdrawals from his POSB passbook savings account. Ms Lim argued that the answers provided by the Husband were insufficient because he had not provided documents in support of his answer. She further argued that the sufficiency of an answer must be assessed with regard to whether disclosure had been given where there is a corresponding request for discovery.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_44"></a>44 I did not agree with this argument advanced by Ms Lim. For one, as the court had observed in <em>UJN</em>, discovery and interrogatories are two means by which parties may obtain information that would allow them to build their substantive arguments at the trial. In this vein, I did not think it could be said that the sufficiency of an answer should be assessed based on whether disclosure had been given in response to a corresponding request for discovery.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_45"></a>45 Having read the answers, I was of the view that they were sufficient. The Husband had attempted to, despite saying he could not recall the exact details, explain the purposes of each of these transfers.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_46"></a>46 I will therefore disallow the Wife’s request in respect of Item 2. However, given that there was a corresponding request for discovery, I will order that the Husband produce documents to support his answers given.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_47"></a>47 I come now to Item 4. This was the request:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">In relation to the Inward Telegraphic Transfers dated 21 September 2018 and 7 December 2018, the Defendant is to state:</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(a) The reason for receiving such a payment</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(b) The source of such monies</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(c) In the event such monies were received as a result of the Defendant’s investments or trading activities, the Defendant is to state which investment or trading account this is in relation to</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">In relation to the Outward Telegraphic Transfers dated 25 September 2018 and 3 October 2018, the Defendant is to state:</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(d) The reason for sending such payments</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(e) What has become of the monies</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(f) In the event the monies were deposited into an investment or trading account, the Defendant is to state which investment or trading account this is in relation to</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(g) Specifically, in relation to the transfer of USD 50,000 on 3 October 2018, the Defendant is to state who [A] is</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">The Defendant is to provide documents evidencing the above.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_48"></a>48 This was the Husband’s response:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Our client instructs that the payment received in the Inward Telegraphic Transfers are withdrawals from his overseas trading account. As the account was closed in 2020, our client is unable to access to the said account.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Our client instructs that the payment sent in the Outward Telegraphic Transfers are deposits into his overseas trading account. As the account was closed in 2020, our client is unable to access to the said account.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Our client instructs that [A] is an overseas trader.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_49"></a>49 Having read the response, I am of the view that it was indeed insufficient, insofar as Items 4(a) – (f) were concerned. This is because there were three parts to each question that had been posed. The Husband, however, had not directly addressed each and every part of the question. For example, the Husband was required to specify the investment or trading account in question, but he did not do so in that he did not give the name or account number of those trading accounts, and merely referred to them as his “overseas trading account”. The Husband was also asked what had become of the monies that were sent via Outward Telegraphic Transfers – he had only stated that those monies were deposited into his overseas trading account but did not disclose what had happened to those monies when the account was closed.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_50"></a>50 I will therefore order that the Husband answer Item 4(a) – (f). As for Item 4(g), I am satisfied that the Husband had provided a sufficient answer. Given that there is a corresponding request for documents, I will also order that the Husband disclose any and all documents in support of his answers to these interrogatories.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Conclusion</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_51"></a>51 I therefore make the following orders in respect of SUM 1063:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_51-p2_a"></a>(a) The Husband shall answer the interrogatories as set out in S/No. 4(a) – (f) in annexed Schedule B, as well as the following interrogatory:</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_51-p2_a-p3_i"></a>(i) Explain the withdrawal of $330,000 via cheque from Company X’s accounts on 6 February 2023. State who the cheque had been made in favour of, and the details of the bank account into which the cheque had been cashed in.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a>on affidavit, to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, pursuant to Rule 69 of the Family Justice Rules 2014.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_51-p2_b"></a>(b) The Husband is to state on affidavit, pursuant to Rule 63 of the Family Justice Rules 2014 in respect of each of the documents listed in S/No. 1, 8 and 11 in the annexed Schedule A, as well as the following:</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_51-p2_b-p3_i"></a>(i) A statement of his CPF investment account with DBS as of 31 December 2023;</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_51-p2_b-p3_ii"></a>(ii) The monthly statements of any trading accounts in his name from 2021 to present;</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_51-p2_b-p3_iii"></a>(iii) Documents supporting his answers to the interrogatories posed in S/No. 2 of the annexed Schedule B;</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_51-p2_b-p3_iv"></a>(iv) Documents supporting his answers to the interrogatories posed in S/No. 4(a) – (f) of the annexed Schedule B;</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_51-p2_b-p3_v"></a>(v) Documents supporting his answers to the interrogatory concerning the withdrawal of $330,000 via cheque from Company X’s accounts on 6 February 2023.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a>whether the same is in his possession, custody or power, and if not in his possession, custody or power, when he parted with it and what has become of it;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_51-p2_c"></a>(c) The Husband shall exhibit in an affidavit, a copy of each of the said documents stated to be in his possession, custody or power,</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_51-p2_d"></a>(d) In respect of each of the said documents that are stated not to be in his possession, custody or power, the Husband shall state the reasons why, and provide supporting documents for the explanation (if any).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_52"></a>52 In addition to the above orders, compliance affidavits are to be filed by 5 July 2024. Parties are to file and serve their submissions on costs by way of letter by 21 June 2024, limited to a maximum of 3 pages each.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_53"></a>53 It remains for me to thank both counsel for their 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>Wife’s affidavit in support of SUM 1063 at p 41.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>Wife’s affidavit in support of SUM 1063 at p 101.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>Wife’s affidavit in support of SUM 1063 at pp 164 – 166.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_4_1" id="Ftn_4">[note: 4]</a></sup>Husband’s Reply Affidavit to SUM 1063.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_5_1" id="Ftn_5">[note: 5]</a></sup>Wife’s Affidavit in support of SUM 1063 at p 198 – 203.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_6_1" id="Ftn_6">[note: 6]</a></sup>Wife’s Affidavit in support of SUM 1063 at p 116.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_7_1" id="Ftn_7">[note: 7]</a></sup>Husband’s AOM at pp 31 – 33.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_8_1" id="Ftn_8">[note: 8]</a></sup>Wife’s Skeletal Submissions at p 76.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_9_1" id="Ftn_9">[note: 9]</a></sup>Wife’s Affidavit in support of SUM 1063 at p 68.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_10_1" id="Ftn_10">[note: 10]</a></sup>Husband’s Reply Affidavit to SUM 1063 at p 42.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_11_1" id="Ftn_11">[note: 11]</a></sup>Wife’s Affidavit in support of SUM 1063 at p 198.</p></div></content></root>	1317

Links from other tables

1 row from _item in fc_judgments_version