fc_judgments: 41

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
41	9e5290d003c0162bc502a99e305ad5cb62549191	[ "Civil Procedure \u2013 Discovery" ]	2024-05-21	Family Court	Divorce No 4479 of 2022 (Summons No 959 and 1317 of 2024)	WXE v WXF	[2024] SGFC 29	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%2F31617-SSP.xml	[ "Audrey Liaw Shu Juan, Joseph Tan Liqi, Jerome-Jon Tan Renyi, Yee May Kuen Peggy Sarah (PY Legal LLC) for the plaintiff", "Robert Leslie Gregory (L G Robert) for the defendant" ]	2024-06-19T16:00:00Z[GMT]	Soh Kian Peng	<root><head><title>WXE v WXF</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> WXE <em>v</em> WXF </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31617-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 29</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 4479 of 2022 (Summons No 959 and 1317 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">21 May 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"> Audrey Liaw Shu Juan, Joseph Tan Liqi, Jerome-Jon Tan Renyi, Yee May Kuen Peggy Sarah (PY Legal LLC) for the plaintiff; Robert Leslie Gregory (L G Robert) 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"> WXE — WXF </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></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">21 May 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 The origins of Boxing Day are shrouded in the mists of time, but for many across the world, this season is a time of joy, love, and merriment. Parties had one more reason than most to celebrate. They were married on that very day in 1992.<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_2"></a>2 The Husband is an American expatriate, and the Wife, a Singaporean. About a year into the marriage, parties relocated to the United States. The Wife returned to Singapore on two occasions to give birth to the children.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span> After spending little more than a decade abroad, parties relocated back to Singapore on account of the Wife, who wished to be closer with her family and friends.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 It is apparent from the parties’ 1<sup>st</sup> Affidavit of Means and Assets (“AOMs”) that the Husband primarily bore the responsibility of being the breadwinner. The nature of his work meant that he travelled frequently to far-flung destinations across the globe. The Wife, on the other hand, was primarily responsible for holding the fort on the home front. She looked after the two children and took care of household expenses.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 However, not all was well insofar as the relationship between the Husband and the Wife was concerned. The Statement of Particulars (“SOP”) provides scant details as to why their relationship broke down, although clues may be found in the various affidavits filed by both parties. In any event, what is material is that the Husband filed for divorce on 27 September 2022, and interim judgment was granted on 14 March 2023. Mediation was conducted in an attempt to settle the outstanding ancillary matters. It failed. Parties thus embarked on the road to an ancillary matters hearing.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 There were two summons before me. SUM 1317 of 2024 (“SUM 1317”) is the Husband’s application for discovery and interrogatories. SUM 959 is the Wife’s application for discovery.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 I heard oral arguments on 15 May 2024. This is my decision in respect of SUM 1317 and SUM 959.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Husband’s Application for Discovery and Interrogatories (SUM 1317) </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 Counsel for the Husband, Ms Liaw, stated in her oral submissions that the Husband would only be proceeding with his application for discovery in respect of two categories of documents. The first was monthly statements for bank accounts (Item 5 of Annex A to SUM 1317). The second was credit card statements (Items 6 – 10 of Annex A to SUM 1317). Ms Liaw also confirmed that the Husband was no longer pursuing his request for interrogatories.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 The documents sought in Item 5 were statements of the joint bank account that the Wife had with the son. Its existence had come to light when the Husband’s lawyers reviewed the parties’ joint bank account statement. Disclosure of this document was, as Ms Liaw put it, relevant and necessary to show whether monies from the parties’ joint bank account had been diverted and put into that account. Ms Liaw also made the point that the Wife cannot escape from her obligation to disclose the bank statements by giving the excuse that the account had been closed.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 In response, counsel for the Wife, Mr Robert, argued that the Husband’s request in respect of Item 5 was a mere fishing expedition. The joint account the Wife had with the son had been closed, and in any case, the Wife had already explained the reason for the transfers between the parties’ joint account and the joint account with her son. It was, therefore, unnecessary to disclose the bank statements.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 In response to this, Ms Liaw clarified that the Husband’s interest in these documents went beyond the few transactions that had been made from the parties’ joint bank account. The Husband needed these statements to confirm that the Wife had not been dissipating or hiding assets.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 I will allow the Husband’s request. The documents sought were indeed relevant and necessary for the hearing of the ancillary matters (see <em>Tan Bin Yong Christopher v Ng Lay Mui (m.w.) and Other Cases</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/25533-M.xml')">[2003] SGDC 306</a> at [13]). Any dubious transfers that involved large sums of cash would clearly show up on the account statements. It also does not suffice to say that disclosure should not be ordered because the account has been closed. If the Wife is unable to produce the statements, then she must explain why she is unable to do so.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 I turn next to the Husband’s request for credit card statements (Items 6 – 10 of Annex A to SUM 1317). His request was, once again, motivated by the suspicion that the Wife had dissipated matrimonial assets. Ms Liaw pointed out that there were, what appeared to be red flags in the sums that, according to the Wife in her response to the Husband’s request for interrogatories, had been applied towards credit card charges. For example, the Wife’s bank statement for her personal account with OCBC disclosed various deposits of $2,000 to $3,000. The Wife explained that she would first pay for the credit card charges using her OCBC personal account, and then reimburse the money by transferring the same sum from their joint account with DBS.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 Mr Robert argued that the Husband’s request for these documents should be denied because the Husband, as the main card holder, should be able to obtain the statements that he sought. In any case, the Wife, being a supplementary card holder, could not obtain the statements sought because the Husband had cancelled the supplementary card that was in her name.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 I disallow the Husband’s request. He wanted the credit card statements to test the veracity of the Wife’s responses to his request for interrogatories. It appeared to me that the Husband was attempting to undertake a detailed forensic accounting approach in order to account for every cent that the Wife claimed had been spent on credit card bills. While it is indeed possible to undertake such an exercise, doing so would require an enormous amount of effort, incur a great deal of costs, and run the risk of reopening old wounds that could have the effect of obfuscating the actual issues in dispute (see the observations of the court in <em>TIG v TIH</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/18530-SSP.xml')">[2016] 1 SLR 1218</a> at [28]).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 In this vein, while the documents were perhaps relevant towards showing whether the Wife had indeed been dissipating matrimonial assets – it did not mean that these documents were necessary for the disposal 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> at [24] citing Rule 73 of the Family Justice Rules 2014 (“FJR 2014”). If the Wife had indeed dissipated assets, there were other ways by which this could be shown apart from undertaking an exercise in forensic accounting – for example, if the alleged expenditure on credit card bills for a particular month was unusually high compared with the expenditure for other months, that would raise a red flag.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 In summary, I allow the Husband’s request in respect of Item 5, and disallow his request in respect of Items 6 – 10.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Wife’s Application for Discovery (SUM 959)</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 I come now to the Wife’s application for discovery. Her application was categorised under two headers with the following items:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_17-p2_a"></a>(a) Under the header “1<sup>st</sup> Request for Discovery”, Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 11.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_17-p2_b"></a>(b) Under the header “2<sup>nd</sup> Request for Discovery”, Items 3, 6, 7, and 8.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 For clarity and ease of reference, I will refer to the various items in the order as set out in the summons.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">1<sup>st</sup> Request for Discovery</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19 Item 1 was the Wife’s request for dental reports. This stemmed from an incident where the Wife had allegedly punched the Husband in the face and damaged his teeth. The Husband had stated, subsequently, that he would like to claim, from the Wife’s share of the matrimonial assets, a sum of money for the dental work. This was what motivated the Wife’s request – she wanted the dental reports to show that the Husband had been lying about being punched in the face.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20 I disallow the request. The dental reports were irrelevant to the disposal of the ancillary matters. If the Husband wished to make such a claim from the share of matrimonial assets, it was for him to adduce such evidence in support of his claim.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21 Item 2 was a police report that the Husband had made against the Wife in which he accused her of embezzlement. Mr Robert argued, in oral submissions, that the Wife wanted disclosure of the report to test the veracity of the Husband’s claims. This was because the Husband had, in his AOM, recounted an incident where he had deposited $35,000 into one of their accounts, and that sum of money had been withdrawn the next day. When he questioned the Wife about it, she denied having withdrawn that sum, and that the bank had made a mistake. As a result, the Husband had “made a police report for embezzlement on the [Wife’s] part”.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22 I disallow the Wife’s request. The police report was clearly irrelevant to the disposal of ancillary matters. At best, that report would only show that the Husband had made a complaint that some $35,000 had been disbursed from the parties’ accounts. It would not show who had taken the money, or where the money had gone. Insofar as the Wife had stated that she wanted to “see what exactly did the [Husband] report her to the Singapore Police Force for, if at all”,<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_3" id="Ftn_3_1"><sup>[note: 3]</sup></a></span> I would add that curiosity is not a basis for disclosure.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23 Items 4 and 5 on the list was a request for statements from the Husband’s bank account with Bank of the West for the months starting 14 August 2022 and 14 September 2022. Mr Robert argued that it was a coincidence that the Husband did not have the statements for these two months. Before August 2022, parties had a huge argument because the Wife had discovered that the Husband had been soliciting for sex online. The Husband had then filed for divorce on 28 of September 2022.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24 In response, Ms Liaw referred me to a screenshot exhibited in the Husband’s affidavit filed on 24 April 2024. That screenshot showed a list of available statements, and did not include the months of August and September, which were the two months that the Wife was seeking disclosure of. Mr Robert’s rejoinder was that the screenshot was not conclusive proof that the statements did not exist.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25 I allow the Wife’s request in respect of Items 4 and 5. These documents are clearly relevant and necessary for the disposal of ancillary matters. It would be useful for the court hearing the ancillary matter, as well as the Wife, to have a picture of the Husband’s financial circumstances shortly before the divorce was filed: <em>Tan Bin Yong Christopher v Ng Lay Mui (m.w.) and Other Cases</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/25533-M.xml')">[2003] SGDC 306</a> at [19]. In any event, if it is the Husband’s case that he does not have, or is unable to obtain these documents, he must provide his reasons, supported by the necessary documentation.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_26"></a>26 Items 9 and 10 related to the Husband’s insurance documents. Mr Robert argued that these documents were relevant to ascertaining the matrimonial pool of assets. In addition, Mr Robert highlighted that the Husband’s response to the Wife’s initial request for documents was that he had no other insurance policies. The Husband later changed his tune and claimed that he could not disclose the documents relating to his insurance policies in the US as they were confidential in nature. Mr Robert also argued, on the assumption that the Husband was refusing disclosure of the insurance documents because they were confidential according to US law, that because the Husband had chosen Singapore as the forum for the divorce, it is Singapore law, and not US law that applies.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_27"></a>27 In response, Ms Liaw stated that the Husband’s position was that there was an insurance policy that was in the Wife’s name. Apart from that, the Husband only had medical insurance which reimbursed him for medical claims.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_28"></a>28 I allow the Wife’s request in respect of Items 9 and 10. Whether there are any insurance policies in the Husband’s name is indeed a relevant issue for the disposal of ancillary matters: (see <em>eg</em>: <em>Lock Yeng Fun v Chua Hock Chye</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/[2007] 3 SLR(R) 0520.xml')">[2007] 3 SLR(R) 520</a> at [27]; <em>UMU v UMT and another appeal</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/22962-SSP.xml')">[2019] 3 SLR 504</a> at [21] – [23]; <em>VZJ v VZK</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31161-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGHCF 16</a> at [27] – [28] and [38]). As for the contention that the documents could not be disclosed because they were allegedly confidential under US law, there was, in any event, no evidence before me to that effect.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_29"></a>29 Item 11 was the Wife’s request for statements for all of the Husband’s credit and debit cards as well as supplementary cards for the period 2018 – 2023. The Wife asked for these documents because the Husband had asked her to produce documentary evidence showing that she had repaid the monthly credit card charges on the Citibank card.<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_30"></a>30 I disallow the request in respect of Item 11. The disclosure of 5 years’ worth of credit card statements was not necessary for the disposal of ancillary matters or for saving costs. It would only enable parties to undertake an exercise in forensic accounting in order to trace every penny that had been spent during that time. As I have mentioned above (at [14] – [15]), if the issue in dispute concerns the alleged dissipation of matrimonial assets, this can be ascertained by other means.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">2<sup>nd</sup> Request for Discovery</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_31"></a>31 Item 3 was a request for statement from the Husband’s Bank of the West account for the month of June 2020. Given Ms Liaw’s confirmation, during the hearing, that the Husband would be disclosing these statements, I make no order in respect of this item.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_32"></a>32 Item 6 was a request for statements from the same Bank of the West account as set out in Item 3 for the period April 2023 to date. The Wife wanted statements for this bank account for the period after interim judgment had been granted.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_33"></a>33 Mr Robert argued that these documents should be disclosed because there was a sum of USD $547,518.54 that was missing from the Husband’s 401k account.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_5" id="Ftn_5_1"><sup>[note: 5]</sup></a></span> This sum may have been hidden away in the Husband’s Bank of the West account, after interim judgment had been entered, but there was no way to know for sure unless the statements for this account for the period April 2023 to date were provided. These bank statements were the final missing piece in the puzzle that would allow the Wife to ascertain where the money had gone.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_34"></a>34 In response, Ms Liaw characterised the Wife’s request as a fishing expedition. These documents, which painted a picture of the Husband’s account after interim judgment had been entered, was not necessary in light of the principle that the pool of matrimonial assets was to be determined at the date of the interim judgment. Ms Liaw further argued that the disclosure of these documents should not be ordered in the interest of expediting matters and saving costs.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_35"></a>35 I will allow the request in respect of Item 6. This was no fishing expedition. Mr Robert had referred me to a document, which was the Husband’s Retirement Savings Statement from Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC. That statement was for the period from 10 October 2014 to 1 October 2023. It is disclosed that the sum of USD $547,518.54 had been withdrawn.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_6" id="Ftn_6_1"><sup>[note: 6]</sup></a></span> That statement, which also covers the immediate period after interim judgment had been obtained, does not provide a breakdown of when the sums had been withdrawn. If this sum had indeed been withdrawn to the Husband’s Bank of the West account after interim judgment had been entered, the statements for this period, which the Wife was seeking, would reflect that. It was thus clear to me that the disclosure of Item 6 was indeed relevant and necessary for the disposal of ancillary matters.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_36"></a>36 I come now to Item 7. This was a request for the Husband’s US 401k yearly account statements for the period 2014 – 2023. As mentioned above, there was a sum of USD $547,518.54 that had been withdrawn. Mr Robert argued that disclosure of the Husband’s 401k yearly statements would enable them to pinpoint when the withdrawals had taken place and serve the relevant requests for interrogatories and further discovery.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_37"></a>37 Ms Liaw’s response was that ordering disclosure would place an undue burden on the Husband given that the documents sought for spanned over a decade. In any event, the Husband had already produced the statements for the 401k account that were available to him.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_38"></a>38 Finally, Ms Liaw pointed to a 401k account statement that was addressed to both the Husband and the Wife. Because the Wife had been named in the report, she too could get information regarding the coming and goings of the 401k account. Mr Robert’s response to this point was that the Wife could not ask for the 401k account statements as her name had been removed from those accounts.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_7" id="Ftn_7_1"><sup>[note: 7]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_39"></a>39 It was clear to me that the Wife wanted the 401k account statements to track down the sum of USD $547,518.54 that had been withdrawn. That said, the request for some 10 years’ worth of statements was, perhaps, framed a little too broadly. I will, instead, order that the Husband state the accounts to which this sum of USD $547,518.54 had been disbursed to and disclose any documentation evidencing the transfer of this sum.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_40"></a>40 I turn now to Item 8. This was a request for statements for the statements of a Bank of the West Account for the period 2020 – 2023. The Husband claimed, in his response to the Wife’s 1<sup>st</sup> Request for Interrogatories, that he could not provide these account statements because they belonged to one Mr X. It is disclosed that Mr X is the Husband’s brother-in-law.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_41"></a>41 This appeared to be, in essence, a request for discovery against a non-party. In this connection, Rule 71 of the FJR 2014 sets out the mechanism by which parties can seek discovery against a non-party. Mr Robert, to his credit, candidly acknowledged that if the account indeed belonged to Mr X, the proper thing to do as a matter of procedure was to follow Rule 71 – but this could not be done because they did not know where Mr X lived, and so could not effect service. Notwithstanding this, Mr Robert argued that Item 8 should be allowed because there was a possibility that Mr X was helping the Husband conceal assets that had been dissipated from the matrimonial pool. Mr Robert also alluded to the possibility that the account did not belong to Mr X when he raised the possibility of the Husband being directed to write to the Bank of the West to confirm that this account did not belong to him.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_42"></a>42 I will disallow the Wife’s request in respect of Item 8. I did not think it was open to me to order the Husband to disclose documents that, on the face of the evidence in the affidavits before me, appeared to belong to a third-party, especially given that Rule 71 provides a mechanism by which such documents can be sought. This, however, does not mean that I accept that the Husband’s statement, that this account belongs to his brother-in-law, is true. The Husband is to provide the necessary documents to show that this account is not in his name.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Orders Made</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_43"></a>43 I therefore make the following orders.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_44"></a>44 In respect of <b>SUM 1317</b>:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_44-p2_a"></a>(a) The Wife shall state on affidavit, pursuant to Rule 63 of the Family Justice Rules 2014, in respect of each of the following documents listed in S/N 5 of Annexure A of this application, 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_44-p2_b"></a>(b) 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-1"><a id="p1_45"></a>45 In respect of <b>SUM 959</b>:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_45-p2_a"></a>(a) The Husband shall state on affidavit, pursuant to Rule 63 of the Family Justice Rules 2014, in respect of each of the following documents listed in S/N 4, 5, 9, 10 under the header “1<sup>st</sup> Request for Discovery” of this application, whether the same is in his possession, custody or power, and if not then 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_45-p2_b"></a>(b) The Husband shall state on affidavit, pursuant to Rule 63 of the Family Justice Rules 2014, in respect of each of the following documents listed in S/N 6 under the header “2<sup>nd</sup> Request for Discovery” of this application, whether the same is in his possession, custody or power, and if not then 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_45-p2_c"></a>(c) In respect of the USA 401k retirement account listed under S/N 7 under the header “2nd Request for Discovery” of this application, the Husband is to state the accounts to which the sum of USD $547,518.54 had been disbursed to and disclose all relevant documentation in relation to the transfer of this sum.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_45-p2_d"></a>(d) The Husband shall exhibit, in the affidavit, a copy of each of the documents that are in his possession, custody or power. If any of the documents are not in his custody, power or possession, he is to state the reasons why, together with supporting documentation for his explanation (if any).</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_45-p2_e"></a>(e) In respect of the Bank of the West account listed under S/N 8 under the header “2<sup>nd</sup> Request for Discovery” of this application, the Husband is to provide the necessary and relevant documentation to support his claim that the account is not in his name. If the Husband is unable to furnish these documents, he is to state the reasons why, together with the supporting documentation for his explanation.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_46"></a>46 In addition to the above, parties are to:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_46-p2_a"></a>(a) File and serve their submissions in respect of costs for SUM 959 and SUM 1317 by 29<sup>th</sup> May 2024, limited to 3 pages each; and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_46-p2_b"></a>(b) Compliance affidavits are to be filed by 25<sup>th</sup> June 2024, 5pm.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Conclusion</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_47"></a>47 I conclude with one observation. I was given the faint impression that at least one of the requests for discovery was motivated by the fact that the other party had also asked that the same documents be disclosed. It bears emphasising that in deciding whether to file applications for discovery, parties must always ask themselves whether the documents sought are relevant and necessary to the disposal of ancillary hearings. They must resist the temptation to engage in tit-for-tat. The Family Court is not a gladiatorial arena, and the rules of procedure are certainly not weapons to be used against the other party.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_48"></a>48 It remains for me to thank counsel for their assistance and able arguments during the hearing.</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 Particulars (Amendment No. 1) at para 1(a).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>Husband’s AOM at para 13(f).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>Wife’s Skeletal Submissions at para 11.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_4_1" id="Ftn_4">[note: 4]</a></sup>Wife’s Skeletal Submissions at para 24.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_5_1" id="Ftn_5">[note: 5]</a></sup>Wife’s Supporting Affidavit for SUM 959 at p 406.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_6_1" id="Ftn_6">[note: 6]</a></sup>Wife’s Supporting Affidavit for SUM 959 at p 406.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_7_1" id="Ftn_7">[note: 7]</a></sup>Wife’s Affidavit filed in support of SUM 959 at para 26.</p></div></content></root>	1318

Links from other tables

1 row from _item in fc_judgments_version