fc_judgments: 44
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 44 | f363da0e4f5a2a6038d760f84055c655585daf22 | [
"Family Law \u2013 Costs"
] |
2024-06-21 | Family Court | Divorce No 1970 of 2022 (Summons No 2855 of 2023) | WYM v WYN | [2024] SGFC 42 | 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%2F31667-SSP.xml | [
"Annette Kong, Deborah Ng, Tan Jin Song (Havelock Law Corporation) for the plaintiff",
"the defendant absent and unrepresented"
] |
2024-06-27T16:00:00Z[GMT] | Soh Kian Peng | <root><head><title>WYM v WYN</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> WYM <em>v</em> WYN </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31667-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 42</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 1970 of 2022 (Summons No 2855 of 2023)</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 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"> Annette Kong, Deborah Ng, Tan Jin Song (Havelock Law Corporation) for the plaintiff; the defendant absent and unrepresented </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"> WYM — WYN </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Costs</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">21 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 This is my decision in respect of costs for SUM 2855 of 2023 (“SUM 2855”).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 Divorce proceedings had commenced on 10 May 2022. Interim judgment had been granted on 22 June 2022. A consent order was entered into on 4 November 2022: FC/ORC 5271/2022 (“ORC 5271”). That order provided that the Defendant pay the Plaintiff the sum of $80,000 over the next 24 months, in installments of $3,333 per month, with the final installment of $3341. Each payment was to be made on or before the 30<sup>th</sup> day of each month.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 The Defendant was late in making payment for the 7<sup>th</sup> instalment. Thereafter, he made no further payments. This meant that he was in breach of ORC 5271.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 On 14 September 2023, the Plaintiff commenced examination of judgment debtor (“EJD”) proceedings in SUM 2855. There were multiple delays in the hearing of SUM 2855.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 When SUM 2855 finally came up before me on the 27<sup>th</sup> of May 2024, counsel for the Plaintiff, sought leave to withdraw SUM 2855 in light of the Defendant’s bankruptcy proceedings. I granted leave to withdraw. Counsel for the Plaintiff asked for costs to be fixed at $1500 (all-in), to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 Given that the Defendant did not show up for that hearing, I directed counsel for the Plaintiff to put in written submissions on costs by 3 June 2024. I also directed that a copy of these submissions be served on the Defendant, who had until 17 June 2024 to file a response. These instructions were conveyed, via Registrar’s Notice, to both parties.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 Counsel filed their written submissions, as directed, on 3 June 2024. As of 20 June 2024, the Defendant had yet to file his submission on costs.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Plaintiff’s Submission on Costs </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 Counsel for the Plaintiff cites, in support of their argument that the Plaintiff is entitled to costs, Rule 854 of the Family Justice Rules 2014. That provision states:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <b>Special matters to be taken into account in exercising discretion</b> </p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">854. The Court in exercising its discretion as to costs must, to such extent, if any, as may be appropriate in the circumstances, take into account —</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(a) any payment of money into Court and the amount of such payment;</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(b) the conduct of all the parties, including conduct before and during the proceedings;</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(c) the parties’ conduct in relation to any attempt at resolving the cause or matter by mediation or any other means of dispute resolution; and</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(d) in particular, the extent to which the parties have followed any relevant pre-action protocol or practice directions.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 In particular, counsel for the Plaintiff highlights that it is the Defendant’s conduct in this case that warrants a costs order in the Plaintiff’s favour. In support of their point, they cite the learned authors of <em>Family Procedure in Singapore</em> (Chen Siyuan, Eunice Chua, Lionel Leo, <em>Family Procedure in Singapore</em> (LexisNexis, 2018) at [854.01] and [854.02]):</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[854.01] … costs are not ordered in matrimonial cases unless there is a need to regulate the litigation process, discourage misconduct, or incentivise sensible behaviour…</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[854.02] Although the parties’ conduct is only one of several factors which the court may take into account, it has been opined that, in certain cases, this factor may take centre stage (citing <em>See Khng Thian Huat v Riduan bin Yusof</em> [2004] 1 SLR(R) in respect of Rules of the Supreme Court O 59 r 5)…</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 Insofar as the Defendant’s conduct is concerned, counsel for the Plaintiff highlights that the Defendant was absent at four hearings held on 29 January 2024, 15 April 2024, 29 April 2024 and 27 May 2024. Counsel argues that the Defendant was absent without good reason and that he was in breach of directions for him to serve his completed questionnaire<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span> for the purposes of the examination of judgment debtor proceedings.<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_11"></a>11 Because of the Defendant’s conduct, SUM 2855 was dragged out over a period of 8 months, and the Plaintiff had been forced to expend considerable costs to enforce the consent order for the outstanding installment payments.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_3" id="Ftn_3_1"><sup>[note: 3]</sup></a></span> This includes disbursements which added up to $144.50.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 Finally, counsel for the Plaintiff argues that the ongoing bankruptcy proceedings do not fetter the Court’s discretion to make an award of costs.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_4" id="Ftn_4_1"><sup>[note: 4]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">My Decision</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 Where costs are concerned, Rule 852 of the FJR 2014 provides the starting point: costs shall follow the event. The court, however, can depart from this starting point if the circumstances of the case warrant it: Rule 852(2). It is also trite that costs are in the court’s discretion – Rule 854 sets out the factors that the court must consider in its exercise of discretion as to costs.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 Having considered the points made by counsel for the Plaintiff, as well as the Defendant’s conduct, and the disbursements incurred by the Plaintiff, I order that costs be fixed at $650 (all-in), to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 Such an order is warranted for the following reasons. First, I note that the Defendant’s conduct and absence from proceedings had indeed resulted in delays. For instance, at the hearing on 29 January 2024, which the Defendant did not attend, counsel for the Plaintiff requested that the EJD proceedings be suspended so that instructions could be taken from their client as to whether committal proceedings should be pursued.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 It also appears that counsel for the Plaintiff had asked that EJD proceedings be suspended because the Defendant had also failed to fill in and serve the questionnaire despite repeated reminders. In that regard, much leeway had been afforded to the Defendant – he had originally been directed to file and serve the completed questionnaire by 27 December 2023.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_5" id="Ftn_5_1"><sup>[note: 5]</sup></a></span> However, at the hearing on 15 April 2024, which the Defendant did not attend, that questionnaire had yet to be completed and served. Counsel for the Plaintiff sought a 1-week extension of time for the Defendant to complete the questionnaire.<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_17"></a>17 In considering the Defendant’s conduct, I also considered it relevant to account for any reasons which the Defendant may have had for his absence from these hearings. In this connection, I do not agree with the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant’s actions were “intentional and contumelious”.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_7" id="Ftn_7_1"><sup>[note: 7]</sup></a></span> In my judgment, it appears that the Defendant’s absence may be traced to the difficult circumstances which he finds himself in.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 I have arrived at this conclusion based on what the Defendant had said at the hearing held on 1 April 2024. He mentioned that he had taken a career break in February 2023 because of depression. He had managed to get a job at the end of last year, but still faced financial issues for which he sought help from Credit Counselling Singapore. He explained that he was unaware of the proceedings because he had a tough time, and did not open his letterbox for a good six months.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_8" id="Ftn_8_1"><sup>[note: 8]</sup></a></span> He also explained that he needed more time to answer the questionnaire because it had been quite taxing dealing with the pending bankruptcy proceedings against him.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19 To the Defendant’s credit, he did appear to have, apart from his appearance at the hearing on 1 April 2024, made one other attempt to turn up for the proceedings. Although the Defendant was absent when I heard SUM 2855 on 27 May 2024, he had sent an email to the Family Court Registry a few hours after the hearing had concluded to ask when the hearing was about to start. It appears that he might have inadvertently overlooked the Registrar’s Notice that had been sent out informing him that the hearing had been refixed to an earlier slot.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20 Given the above, I am prepared to take a charitable view of the Defendant’s conduct in that he had failed to turn up at the hearings because of his present circumstances, and not because he was deliberately attempting to frustrate the Plaintiff’s attempts to enforce ORC 5271.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21 That being said, I cannot ignore the fact that the Defendant’s conduct had indeed caused delays insofar as the hearing of SUM 2855 was concerned, but also meant that the Plaintiff had to incur additional expense in considering alternative ways of enforcing ORC 5271.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22 Finally, I add that the award of costs which I have ordered (above at [14]) in this case signals that in our family justice system which adopts therapeutic justice, parties are expected to participate in proceedings (see <em>VVB v VVA</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/29144-SSP.xml')">[2022] 4 SLR 1181</a> (“<em>VVB</em>”) at [26]; <em>WLR and another v WLT and another and other matters</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31457-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGHCF 20</a> at [14] where the court took the view that an award of costs signals that taking an adversarial stance in proceedings is unacceptable in a system that adopts therapeutic justice).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23 Therapeutic justice focusses on helping parties move on by focusing on resolving the problems at hand: <em>VVB</em> at [28]; <em>VDZ v VEA</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/25178-SSP.xml')">[2020] 2 SLR 858</a> at [75] – [79]. The corollary of this is that parties are expected to attend hearings where their attendance is expected – for example, in cases where they are self-represented. They are also expected to comply with all court directions and orders. They cannot bury their heads in the sand. Problems can hardly be solved if one party does not participate and is either continually absent from proceedings where their attendance is expected or refuses to comply with court directions.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_1_1" id="Ftn_1">[note: 1]</a></sup>See https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/civil/respond-order-for-examination-judgment-debtor.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>Plaintiff’s Written Submissions at para 18.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>Plaintiff’s Written Submissions at para 19.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_4_1" id="Ftn_4">[note: 4]</a></sup>Plaintiff’s Written Submissions at para 21.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_5_1" id="Ftn_5">[note: 5]</a></sup>Minute Sheet dated 11 December 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_6_1" id="Ftn_6">[note: 6]</a></sup>Minute Sheet dated 15 April 2024.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_7_1" id="Ftn_7">[note: 7]</a></sup>Plaintiff’s Written Submissions at para 19.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_8_1" id="Ftn_8">[note: 8]</a></sup>Minute Sheet dated 1 April 2024.</p></div></content></root> | 1321 |
Links from other tables
- 1 row from _item in fc_judgments_version