fc_judgments: 42
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 42 | db4f3b364ecd392268e736ef8e02971d28cfd8f1 | [
"Civil Procedure \u2013 Discovery",
"Civil Procedure \u2013 Interrogatories",
"Civil Procedure \u2013 Interrogatories \u2013 Sufficiency of Answer"
] |
2024-06-12 | Family Court | Divorce No 1157 of 2022 (Summons No 913, 1122 and 1123 of 2024) | WYI v WYJ | [2024] SGFC 39 | 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%2F31642-SSP.xml | [
"Plaintiff in person and unrepresented",
"Arul Suppiah Thevar (APL Law Corporation) for the Defendant."
] |
2024-06-24T16:00:00Z[GMT] | Soh Kian Peng | <root><head><title>WYI v WYJ</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> WYI <em>v</em> WYJ </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31642-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 39</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 1157 of 2022 (Summons No 913, 1122 and 1123 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">12 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"> Plaintiff in person and unrepresented; Arul Suppiah Thevar (APL Law Corporation) 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"> WYI — WYJ </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 class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Civil Procedure</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Interrogatories</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Sufficiency of Answer</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">12 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 the 16<sup>th</sup> of April 2008 in India. They had one child. Both Husband and Wife are Singapore Permanent Residents. They bought a HDB flat. The details of how the marriage broke down are set out in some detail in the SOP. It is not necessary for me to narrate the details, save to say that the Husband filed for divorce on 21 March 2022. Interim judgment was obtained on 29 May 2023.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 This set of proceedings follows the process of voluntary disclosure that takes place before the ancillary matters hearing. Both the Husband and Wife were dissatisfied with the information and documents that the other party had disclosed, and thus took out their respective applications for discovery and interrogatories. SUM 913 of 2024 (“SUM 913”) is the Husband’s request for discovery. SUM 1122 (“SUM 1122”) and 1123 of 2024 (“SUM 1123”) are the Wife’s applications for interrogatories and discovery.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 I heard all three applications on 30 May 2024. This is my decision in respect of SUM 913, SUM 1122 and SUM 1123.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Husband’s Application for Discovery </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 Item 1 was a request for the Wife to provide her personal bank statements of all types (current/savings/joint accounts etc) either in Singapore or overseas for the past 3 years.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 The Husband, who was self-represented at the hearing, explained that these documents were indeed relevant and necessary to the determination of the ancillary matters. He also argued that the Wife should, at the very least, furnish an explanation if she was unable to produce the documents which he had asked for.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 Counsel for the Wife, Mr Suppiah, pointed out that the Wife had given bank statements from her Singapore bank accounts for the past 6 months, and that there was no basis to ask for 3 years’ worth of statements. As for the statements from the Wife’s bank accounts in India, the Wife would produce those documents but she would require more time to do so.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 Having considered the arguments, I order that the Wife is to disclose bank statements for all her bank accounts, both in Singapore and abroad, for the period January 2020 – December 2023. I note that relations between the parties had already begun to deteriorate as early as 2020. In that vein, it would be useful for the court, as well as the Husband, to have a clear picture of the Wife’s financial situation from the time the marriage broke down till after divorce proceedings had commenced: <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> (“<em>Tan Bin Yong Christopher</em>”) at [19].</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 I turn now to Item 2. This was a request for the Wife to produce “business bank statements of all types (current/savings/joint accounts etc) either in Singapore or overseas” for the past 3 years.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 The Husband explained, during the hearing, that the documents he sought were in relation to two businesses. One was Company X. The Wife is a director and a majority shareholder of this company.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span> The other business was a partnership in India (“Partnership X”). It is also disclosed that the Wife is a partner of Partnership X.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span> The Husband wants these documents because he suspects that the Wife has been hiding matrimonial assets in the business bank accounts of both Company X, Partnership X, and any other businesses that she may have.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 In response, Mr Suppiah argued that in relation to Company X, the Wife had explained that she could not disclose the documents sought because the company constitution prohibited her from doing so. In any event, she has produced some financial statements of both Company X and Partnership X that were in her possession.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 Insofar as the disclosure of company documents are concerned, the principles laid down 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) are relevant and bear reproducing in full here:</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) 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. 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_12"></a>12 In other words, if the documents sought are in the Wife’s physical possession, she must disclose them. Alternatively, if those documents are not in her physical possession, but she can obtain them in her personal capacity, she too must disclose them.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 In the present case, there was nothing before me to suggest that the Wife indeed had these bank statements in her physical possession, or that she could obtain them in her personal capacity. Insofar as the shareholding structure of the company was concerned, all that was disclosed before me is that the Wife is a majority shareholder with 72001 shares, whilst the other shareholder of Company X holds the remaining 48000 shares. This alone, without more, is insufficient for me to conclude that the bank statements were indeed within the Wife’s power to obtain. I would also note, for completeness, that there was nothing placed before me to demonstrate that the Wife had complete or substantial control over the affairs of Company X such that it was her alter ego.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 As for the documents sought in respect of Partnership X, I did not think that it was open to me to order the disclosure of its bank accounts. For one, it is uncertain as to whether the other disclosed partner to Partnership X also has, pursuant to the laws of India where the partnership is based, a joint interest in the bank accounts that are sought. As I had noted on a previous occasion, the scope of disclosure in relation to partnership documents appears to be based on the <em>type</em> of document in question – for example, partnership books would generally not be disclosed because the Partnership Act 1980 makes it clear that every other partner to the partnership shall have access to inspect and copy the books: <em>WWU v WWV</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31491-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 26</a> at [11] – [15].</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 In any event, even if I <em>could</em> order disclosure of these documents sought, I did not think that I <em>should</em> order disclosure. I do not think that these documents are necessary for the disposal of the ancillary matters – insofar as the Husband suspects the Wife of hiding matrimonial assets in the accounts of Company X and Partnership X, there are other ways by which this may be established. For example, transfers of large amounts of cash from one’s personal accounts or from the parties’ joint accounts may suggest that assets are indeed being dissipated.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 I therefore disallow the request in respect of Item 2.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 I come now to Item 3. This was a request for the Wife’s past 3 years of IRAS Notice of Assessment.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 The Husband argued that these documents were needed to give him a holistic view of the Wife’s income. He pointed out that she had not disclosed these documents, and that if the Wife could ask him for his IRAS Notice of Assessment, he too could seek the same from the Wife. He further argues that if the Wife claims that she cannot obtain the statements from IRAS, she is to provide proof.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19 I will allow the request in respect of Item 3. There can be no quarrel that the IRAS Notice of Assessment will indeed be relevant and necessary to the hearing of the ancillary matters. It will allow the Husband to gauge the Wife’s means and would also be relevant for the issue of maintenance. I must also add that insofar as the Husband had argued that he is entitled to ask for these documents because the Wife had asked him for the same, parties are not to engage in tit-for-tat: <em>WXE v WXF</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31617-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 29</a> at [47]. Such an argument has no basis in law and only serves to distract parties from the core issues at hand.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20 I turn now to the last request: Item 4. This was a request for the Wife to disclose documents relating to any properties that she owns. The Husband explained that he was asking for these documents because the Wife was, according to him, hiding properties in India. He says that ascertaining which properties the Wife has in India is relevant not only to the division of matrimonial assets, but also maintenance.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21 I will allow the request in respect of Item 4. I am satisfied that these documents are relevant and necessary for the disposal of the ancillary matters, specifically, the division of matrimonial assets as well as maintenance.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Wife’s Application for Interrogatories</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22 Interrogatories should only be ordered if they are relevant and necessary for the disposal of ancillary matters or for saving costs: <em>UJN v UJO</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/21836-SSP.xml')">[2018] SGFC 47</a>; see also Rule 69(2) of the Family Justice Rules 2014.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23 Rule 69(5) of the Family Justice Rules 2014 sets out a basis on which the court can grant an order for interrogatories. That provision states:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(5) The applicant may apply to the Court for an order for the relevant interrogatories to be answered if —</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(<em>a</em>) no response is received from the respondent within the period specified in paragraph (3); or</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(<em>b</em>) the respondent has stated in writing, pursuant to paragraph (3), that he is not willing or not able to answer any or all of the interrogatories served.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24 Apart from Rule 69(5), Rule 69(9) and (10) are also relevant. They state:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(9) In deciding whether to grant an application for interrogatories, the Court must take into account any offer made by the respondent to give particulars, make admissions or produce documents relating to any matter in question.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(10) Where the Court has ordered interrogatories to be answered, they must be answered by affidavit to be filed within such period as the Court directs.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25 Collectively, these provisions deal with a situation where the spouse refuses to, or states that they are unwilling or unable to answer any of the interrogatories. If the interrogatory has been answered, but the answer is insufficient, Rule 70(2) – (3) allows the court to order further answers to be given. Those provisions state:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <b>Objections and insufficient answers to interrogatories</b> </p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">…</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(2) Where any person on whom interrogatories have been served, or who has been ordered to answer interrogatories, under rule 69 answers any of them insufficiently, <b>the Court may make an order requiring him to make a further answer, either by affidavit or on oral examination as the Court may direct.</b></p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(3) Where any person gives insufficient answers to interrogatories which have been served on him or ordered under rule 69, the party administering the interrogatories may ask for further and better particulars of the answers given.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_26"></a>26 Therefore, in a situation where an answer has been provided to an interrogatory, I must look at the sufficiency of the answer in assessing whether interrogatories should be ordered. The truth of the answer does not concern me – any quarrel as to the truth of the answers given by the Husband must be taken up at the hearing of the ancillary matters.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_27"></a>27 During the course of the hearing, Mr Suppiah raised one point: that the Husband’s answers to the interrogatories as set out in his Notice in Response to the Wife’s Request for Interrogatories (“NIR”) needed to be properly documented and formalised by being set out in an affidavit. Mr Suppiah noted that the Husband was self-represented, but given the fact that the Husband had said many things which were not on record, he wanted the Husband’s answers to all the interrogatories which had been posed to be formally recorded down.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_28"></a>28 During the hearing, however, the Husband had referred to his answers as set out in his NIR. His argument was that none of the interrogatories posed to him should be ordered because he had already answered them in his NIR and that his answers were sufficient.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_29"></a>29 For good order, I will order that the Husband also exhibit, in his compliance affidavit, a copy of the NIR. In any event, I shall, in dealing with the Wife’s request for interrogatories, take into account the Husband’s responses in his NIR given the Husband’s arguments that he had already provided sufficient responses in his NIR.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_30"></a>30 I turn now to deal with the Wife’s requests. I will first deal with Items 1 and 2 together.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_31"></a>31 Item 1 required the Husband to state whether he had quit his employment with his former company, AC, or whether he had been retrenched. Item 2 asked the Husband to state, since the day he became unemployed, the measures he had taken to regain employment. Mr Suppiah explained that these interrogatories were relevant and necessary to determining whether the Husband was trying to escape his obligation to paying maintenance.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_32"></a>32 This was the Husband’s response to Item 1:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Already stated in the Plaintiff’s affidavit, employment contract terminated in 4 months and its within 6 months per agreement prior to company’s confirmation.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_33"></a>33 As for Item 2, this was his response:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Keep applying for similar and relevant job openings via various job portals in Singapore.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_34"></a>34 Neither answer was, in my judgment, sufficient. In assessing the sufficiency of an answer to an interrogatory, one must consider the interrogatory that had been posed: <em>WWS v WWT</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31488-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 24</a> at [29] – [30]. In addition, a general denial is not a sufficient answer to a specific averment: <em>WXG v WXH</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31582-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 32</a> at [10] citing <em>Earp v Lloyd</em> [1858] 70 ER 24.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_35"></a>35 The Husband did not, in his answer to Item 1, make clear whether he had been retrenched, or whether he had quit his job with AC. As for his answer to Item 2, he says he kept applying for similar and relevant job openings, but does not provide details as to this. If he had indeed applied for similar and relevant job openings, there was no reason why he could not provide, at the very least, some details of the same.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_36"></a>36 I will therefore allow the request in respect of Items 1 and 2.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_37"></a>37 I turn now to Items 5, 6 and 7. These items were basically a request for the Husband to state whether he had, apart from his business, [P], any other sources of income in either India or Singapore. If so, he was to state the date on which he began to receive additional income, the source of income, the frequency at which he received such income, the amount of such income and the financial institution into which such income had been deposited into.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_38"></a>38 Mr Suppiah argued that these interrogatories were relevant to the division of matrimonial assets, and also for any adverse inferences to be drawn in necessary.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_39"></a>39 The Husband’s responses to Items 5, 6 and 7 were: “No”, “No”, and “NA”.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_40"></a>40 This is not a sufficient answer. As I had noted above (at [34]), a general denial is not a sufficient answer to a specific averment. In the present case, the Wife had, in her affidavit filed in support of SUM 1122 and 1123, stated that:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">…[T]he Plaintiff has multiple banking accounts in India, ancestry lands and properties that he has inherited or purchased and also has a business by the name of “Meyyappa Jewellers” in India.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_41"></a>41 Given this, and notwithstanding the fact that the interrogatories in Items 5 and 6 were crafted to elicit either a “yes” or “no” response, I am not satisfied that the Husband’s response is sufficient. What I have said, however, should not, in any way, be construed as casting doubt on the <em>truth</em> of the Husband’s answers. Given what the Wife had said in her affidavit, the Husband’s responses to the interrogatories posed must go further than a bare denial. Item 7 only required an answer if the answer to either Items 5 or 6 was a “yes”.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_42"></a>42 I will therefore allow the request in Items 5, 6, and 7. I also order that the Husband provide an explanation as to whether he is involved with the business by the name of “MJ” in India.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_43"></a>43 I turn now to Items 9 and 10. This was the interrogatory posed in Item 9:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Apart from the bank account mentioned at paragraph 12 of the Plaintiff’s 1<sup>st</sup> Affidavit, did the Defendant at any time maintain any account or investment in any type of financial institution in Singapore or overseas in his sole name or in joint names with others, or in the name of another, including current accounts, savings accounts, fixed deposit accounts, certificates of deposit accounts, off-shore accounts foreign currency or money market accounts, [g]old, silver or other precious metals trading accounts, investments accounts or other financial accounts.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_44"></a>44 If Item 9 was answered in the positive, Item 10 required the Husband to provide details which included, amongst other things, the type of accounts or investments as well as the name and address of the bank or financial institutions.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_45"></a>45 The Husband had answered “no” in relation to Item 9. As I have mentioned, above (at [40]), given the Wife’s averment in her affidavit that he has additional bank accounts, I do not think that the Husband’s answer, which takes the form of a bare denial, is sufficient.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_46"></a>46 I will therefore allow the request in Item 9 and 10.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_47"></a>47 I turn now to deal with Items 11 and 12. The Husband was queried on whether he had transferred assets which were owned by him. Item 12 required the Husband to, if his answer to Item 11 was a “yes”, to provide the relevant details.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_48"></a>48 The Husband had, once again, answered “no” to Item 11. Again, as I had mentioned above (at [40]), this general denial is not a sufficient answer given what the Wife had stated in her affidavit.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_49"></a>49 Items 11 and 12 are allowed.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_50"></a>50 Finally, I come to Items 13 and 14. Item 13 required the Husband to declare whether he owned any properties in India. Item 14 required the Husband, if he had answered Item 13 in the positive, to provide the relevant details.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_51"></a>51 Again, because the Wife had stated in her affidavit that the Husband had multiple properties as well as ancestral lands in India, I am not satisfied that the Husband’s answers, which take the form of the barest of denials, are sufficient.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_52"></a>52 I will therefore allow the request in respect of Items 13 and 14.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_53"></a>53 To round off, I note that there was also a corresponding request set out in Items 28 – 32 of the Wife’s application for discovery for the Husband to provide documents along with his responses to the interrogatories posed. In brief, the Wife wanted the Husband to disclose documents such as the letter of termination or resignation, as well as documents relating to any properties which the Husband may own in India.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_54"></a>54 I allow the corresponding requests for documents as is set out in Items 28 – 32. I am satisfied that these documents are indeed relevant and necessary to the determination of the ancillary matters.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Wife’s Application for Discovery</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_55"></a>55 I note, at the outset, that Mr Suppiah stated his difficulty determining the Husband’s position in relation to the Wife’s application for discovery – specifically, it was difficult to pinpoint exactly which categories of documents the Husband was willing to disclose.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_56"></a>56 Given this, I directed Mr Suppiah to proceed with all the items in the Wife’s request for discovery.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_57"></a>57 I begin with Items 1 – 3. These were basically requests for documentary evidence to support the Husband’s assertion that he had taken out certain loans.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_58"></a>58 Mr Suppiah argued that these documents were relevant to the determination of the matrimonial pool of assets as well as ascertaining the Husband’s means. He explained that the Wife was left in the dark as to what had been done about the money, and that her position was that the Husband was exaggerating the extent of his financial hardship. These documents were also relevant in allowing the Wife to argue that an adverse inference should be drawn against the Husband for failing to disclose his assets.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_59"></a>59 In response, the Husband argued that he had already disclosed the document in respect of Item 1. As for Items 2 and 3, he did not have documents to produce because those were informal loans he had taken out.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_60"></a>60 I disallow the request in respect of Items 1, 2 and 3. These documents, in my judgment, were not necessary for the disposal of the ancillary hearing matters. While they might have been relevant for determining the Husband’s means, there were other methods by which that might be ascertained – for example, by combing through the comings and goings of the Husband’s bank account statements. In any event, the onus lay on the Husband, having stated in his AOM, that he had taken out these loans, to provide proof of the same.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_61"></a>61 I turn next to Items 5, 6, and 7. Item 5 was a request for bank statements, and Item 7 was a request for the IRAS Notice of assessment. Item 6 was a request for the valuation report of [P]. This is the business which the Husband runs as a sole-proprietor.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_3" id="Ftn_3_1"><sup>[note: 3]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_62"></a>62 Mr Suppiah explained that the request in respect of Items 5 and 7 were for documents for any company in which the Husband has an interest, be it as a director, shareholder or in some other capacity. He explained that the request was framed broadly because, apart from [P], there was no other available information as to whether the Husband had any interest or connections to any other companies.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_63"></a>63 I disallow the request in relation to Items 5 and 7. Where company documents are sought, one inquiry which must be considered is whether the documents sought are either in the Husband’s physical possession, or whether he has the power to obtain them: <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 determining whether the company documents are indeed within the Husband’s power to obtain, it may be relevant to look at, amongst other things, the shareholding structure of the company. Given the principles of law relating to the disclosure of company documents in the matrimonial context that had been laid down in <em>ACW</em>, it therefore follows that the request for discovery of company documents must be framed with some degree of specificity. At the very least, the request must state the name of the company and there must be some <em>prima facie</em> evidence that the documents sought are either within that spouse’s physical possession, or within their power to obtain.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_64"></a>64 In any event, I have allowed the Wife’s request for interrogatories which required the Husband to disclose his interest in any other businesses (above at [42]). I have also allowed the corresponding request for discovery in that the Husband is to provide documents to support his answers to the interrogatories posed (above at [54]).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_65"></a>65 As for Item 6, I disallow the request – again, there was no <em>prima facie</em> evidence that such a report existed. That said, I accept that the earnings from this business are relevant to the assessment of the Husband’s means. I therefore order the Husband to produce the business books of [P].</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_66"></a>66 Item 8 was a request for the valuation report of the Husband’s car. Mr Suppiah argued that this was relevant to the determination of the matrimonial pool of assets as well as ascertaining the Husband’s means.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_67"></a>67 In response, the Husband argued that there was no point in producing a valuation report because the car was reaching the end of its Certificate of Entitlement.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_68"></a>68 I disallow the request. While the Husband had provided an estimate as to the value of the car, there was nothing to suggest that he had done so on the basis of a valuation report. There must at least be some <em>prima facie</em> evidence that such a valuation report existed before an order for discovery may be made: <em>VTQ v VTR</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/26432-SSP.xml')">[2021] SGFC 85</a> at [64] citing <em>Alliance Management SA v Pendleton Lane P and another and another suit</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/53698-M.xml')">[2007] SGHC 133</a> (at [24]).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_69"></a>69 Item 11 was a request for the Husband’s CPF account balance statement. Mr Suppiah argued that it was relevant towards assessing the Husband’s means and the division of matrimonial assets.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_70"></a>70 I accept Mr Suppiah’s argument and allow the request in Item 11. I am satisfied that the CPF account balance statement is indeed relevant and necessary for the hearing of the ancillary matters. I note that the Husband has disclosed a CPF statement showing the amount of monies withdrawn for housing, as well as his CPF statements for May to November 2023 in his Affidavit of Assets and Means (“AOM”). However, he has not produced the statement showing his CPF account balance.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_71"></a>71 I turn now to Items 13, 14, 15, and 16. These were basically requests for the Husband to provide documentary evidence in support of his alleged monthly expenses.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_72"></a>72 I disallow the request in relation to these items. As I pointed out to Mr Suppiah in the course of the hearing, this was something for the Husband to prove – in other words, he bore the onus of providing the necessary documents in support of his assertion as to his monthly expenditure.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_73"></a>73 Item 19 was a request that the Husband provide documentary evidence to show that he was indeed giving $400 each month to his sister as financial support. Mr Suppiah argued that these documents were relevant to determining the Husband’s means and earning capacity, as well as the issue of maintenance.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_74"></a>74 In response, the Husband said that this document was not necessary to the disposal of ancillary matters. He claimed that he was supporting his sister, who was his only sibling, financially as she had lost her husband.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_75"></a>75 I disallow the request in respect of Item 19. If the Husband asserts that he is giving $400 every month to his sister, then the onus is on him to establish that.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_76"></a>76 I come now to Items 20 – 27. These items were, again, all requests for the Husband to provide documentary proof of his expenses. Mr Suppiah argued that these documents were relevant to the Husband’s means as well as the division of assets. He also pointed out that while the Husband had asserted that he had incurred these expenses, he did not provide any documentary proof of the same.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_77"></a>77 I disallow the request in relation to Items 20 – 27. I note that the Husband has asserted, in his AOM, that he has spent certain sums, for example, paying for family trips. However, it does not appear that the Husband has provided any documents to back up his assertions. There may be an argument that can be made, but that is best ventilated at the hearing of the ancillary matter itself. The discovery process is not an avenue to challenge assertions made by the other side by demanding that they provide documents of the same.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Orders Made</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_78"></a>78 I therefore order the following:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a> <b>SUM 913</b> </p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_78-p2_a"></a>(a) The Wife shall state on affidavit, pursuant to Rule 63 of the Family Justice Rules 2014, in respect of the following documents:</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_78-p2_a-p3_i"></a>(i) Item 1 of the Husband’s affidavit filed in support of SUM 913 for the period January 2020 – December 2023;</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_78-p2_a-p3_ii"></a>(ii) Items 3, and 4 of the Husband’s affidavit filed in support of SUM 913,</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a>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_78-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-2"><a id=""></a> <b>SUM 1122</b> </p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_78-p2_c"></a>(c) The Husband shall answer, on affidavit, the interrogatories as set out in Item 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 of the Schedule annexed to this summons, 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_78-p2_d"></a>(d) The Husband shall also state, on affidavit, whether he is involved with the business by the name of “MJ” in India.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_78-p2_e"></a>(e) The Husband shall also exhibit, in his affidavit, his Notice in Response to the Wife’s Request for Interrogatories.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a> <b>SUM 1123</b> </p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_78-p2_f"></a>(f) The Husband shall state on affidavit, pursuant to Rule 63 of the Family Justice Rules 2014, in respect of the following documents:</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_78-p2_f-p3_i"></a>(i) The business books of [P];</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_78-p2_f-p3_ii"></a>(ii) Items 11, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32 of the Schedule annexed to this summons,</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a>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_78-p2_g"></a>(g) 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-1"><a id="p1_79"></a>79 In addition to the above orders, it is also ordered that compliance affidavits are to be filed and served by 5 July 2024. Costs submissions are to be filed and served by way of letter by 28 June, limited to 3 pages each. Parties are given liberty to apply should they require more time to prepare and file their compliance affidavits.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_80"></a>80 For the avoidance of doubt, the time period for filing an appeal against this decision shall only begin to run once I have given my decision as to costs.</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 Reply Affidavit to SUM 913 at p 17.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>Wife’s Reply Affidavit to SUM 913 at p 66.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>Husband’s Affidavit of Assets and Means at para 4(b).</p></div></content></root> | 1319 |
Links from other tables
- 1 row from _item in fc_judgments_version