fc_judgments: 68
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 68 | 6271f0839134fbca3dc918a4bd2f0c337286af44 | [
"Family Law \u2013 Procedure \u2013 Discovery",
"Family Law \u2013 Procedure \u2013 Interrogatories"
] |
2024-08-19 | Family Court | Divorce No 1791 of 2023 (Summons No 1204 of 2024) | XBG v XBH | [2024] SGFC 65 | 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%2F32012-SSP.xml | [
"Teo Eng Thye (City Law LLC) for the plaintiff",
"the defendant in-person and unrepresented."
] |
2024-08-23T16:00:00Z[GMT] | Soh Kian Peng | <root><head><title>XBG v XBH</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> XBG <em>v</em> XBH </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/32012-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 65</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 1791 of 2023 (Summons No 1204 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">19 August 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"> Teo Eng Thye (City Law LLC) for the plaintiff; the defendant in-person 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"> XBG — XBH </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Procedure</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Discovery</span></p> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Procedure</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Interrogatories</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">19 August 2024</p></td><td><p class="Judg-Date-Reserved">Judgment reserved</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p> <p class="Judg-Author"> Assistant Registrar Soh Kian Peng:</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1 SUM 1204/2024 (“SUM 1204”) was the Husband’s application for discovery and interrogatories. I heard parties on 7 August, and now give my decision in respect of SUM 1204.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Background to SUM 1204</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 These are the facts as disclosed in the Statement of Particulars (“SOP”). The Husband is a Singapore citizen, and the Wife is Vietnamese. They were married in Singapore and registered their marriage on 27 February 2016.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 Parties welcomed a son (“A”) into their family. Aside from A, the Wife also had another son (“X”) who was born out of wedlock. A and X are aged 7 and 15 respectively.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 The SOP tells us why their marriage broke down. It sets out details of how the Husband had behaved in such an unreasonable manner that the Wife could not reasonably be expected to live with him. She filed for divorce on 19 April 2023, and interim judgment was granted on 2 February 2024.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 Thereafter, parties set course for a hearing of the ancillary matters. Given that the Wife had refused to disclose certain documents and did not satisfactorily answer the interrogatories posed during the voluntary disclosure process, the Husband took out SUM 1204.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 I turn now to deal first with the Husband’s application for discovery. I add that I am proceeding primarily on the basis of <em>oral</em> arguments made by both the Husband as well as counsel for the Wife, Mr Teo Eng Chye (“Mr Teo”), at the hearing before me. Although Mr Teo had, on 18 July 2024, put in a set of written submissions purportedly addressing the Husband’s application in SUM 1204, those submissions appeared to have dealt solely with ancillary matters. I could find nothing in that set of written submissions dealing with the issues of discovery or interrogatories.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Husband’s Application for Discovery</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 In deciding whether to order discovery, I am guided by the twin principles of relevance and necessity. In other words, the Husband must demonstrate that the documents which he is seeking discovery of are both relevant and necessary for the disposal of the ancillary matters: <em>WXI v WXJ</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31581-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 31</a> at [6] citing <em>UJN v UJO</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/21836-SSP.xml')">[2018] SGFC 47</a> at [10]; Rules 63 – 77 of the Family Justice Rules 2014; <em>WYX v WYY</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31691-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 45</a> at [5].</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 In this connection, it must be noted that a liberal view is generally taken as to what is considered relevant to the hearing of the ancillary matters – this is to ensure that the judge hearing the ancillary matters has all the evidence before them to arrive at a decision: <em>WWS v WWT</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31488-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 24</a> at [23] citing <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].</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 Item 1<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span> was a request for the Wife to provide the monthly statements for the following bank accounts in her name for the past 2 years:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_9-p2_a"></a>(a) DBS account ending -6;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_9-p2_b"></a>(b) OCBC account ending -xx1;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_9-p2_c"></a>(c) MayBank account ending -x5; and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_9-p2_d"></a>(d) An account jointly held with X.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 The Husband explained that these statements were relevant and necessary to shedding light on the Wife’s earning capacity, specifically, how much money she was making from the business that she was running. Apart from this, the Husband also argued that the bank statements would allow him, and the court, to determine if the Wife had been dissipating matrimonial assets – the Husband had pointed to a withdrawal of some $20,000 from one of the Wife’s accounts.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 In response, counsel for the Wife, Mr Teo, argued that the Wife had already disclosed all the documents that she had, and that it was impossible to retrieve documents dating that far back. In respect of the joint account with X, Mr Teo said that X was not the Husband’s adopted son. The Wife’s position appears to be that because X is not the Husband’s adopted son, he is a third party and so there is no need for the Wife to disclose the statements of that joint account.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 What Mr Teo said drew a sharp response from the Husband who argued vigorously that he was indeed X’s father. The Husband explained to me that he had signed all of X’s adoption papers.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 I will allow the Husband’s request in respect of Item 1. The two-year period of disclosure which the Husband seeks also covers the months leading up to the Wife’s filing of the divorce. The law on this is clear – it is indeed useful for the court to have a view as to the financial circumstances of parties leading up to and following the filing of the divorce: <em>WXY v WXZ</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31610-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 36</a> at [34] citing <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]; <em>WZH v WZI</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31841-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 48</a> at [8].</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 I would also add that the Wife cannot side-step her disclosure obligations by simply claiming that she does not have or is unable to produce these statements. She must provide an explanation together with the relevant supporting documents (such as a letter from the bank stating that such records are no longer available): <em>WZF v WZG</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31712-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 46</a> at [10] citing <em>WWS v WWT</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31488-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 24</a> at [75].</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 Item 2<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span> was the Husband’s request for the Wife to provide the following documents of her sole proprietorship (“MD”):</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_15-p2_a"></a>(a) Business monthly income and expenses statement;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_15-p2_b"></a>(b) Supporting documentation of her business financial declaration filed annually to the Registry of Companies; and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_15-p2_c"></a>(c) IRAS Notice of Assessment for the year 2022 and 2023.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 The basis for the Husband’s request in Item 2 is that there is a massive discrepancy between what the Wife claims that she earns, and what she can afford. According to the Husband, the Wife had declared in her Affidavit of Assets and Means (“AOM”) that MD was suffering monthly losses to the tune of $7000. Despite this, she had somehow managed to find the money to invest in property in Vietnam and to buy a car.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 In response, Mr Teo said that according to the Wife, MD was indeed making a loss. If the Husband claims that MD is making a profit, he had to provide some proof of the same.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 In the Wife’s AOM, she states that MD has a deficit of $7094.78, and that she draws a salary (<em>ie</em>, her take-home monthly income) from MD of $3000.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_3" id="Ftn_3_1"><sup>[note: 3]</sup></a></span> In addition, the Wife also states, but provides no further details, that she has a source of income from Vietnam that is not consistent.<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_19"></a>19 I note that the Wife has provided nothing by way of documentation in relation to MD. That said, she has provided her IRAS statements for the Year of Assessment in 2022 and 2023. This was her assessed income:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_19-p2_a"></a>(a) In 2022: $11,650</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_19-p2_b"></a>(b) In 2023: $24,000.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20 I observe, solely from what the Wife has disclosed in her AOM, that there does appear to be some discrepancies. For example, if it is true that her monthly take home salary is $3000, her assessed income for tax purposes is markedly lower. In addition to this, the Wife claims, on the one hand, that MD, which is her business, is running a deficit of approximately $7000 every month. Yet on the other, she claims that she has a monthly take-home salary of $3000. It is difficult to see how the figures add up.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21 I will therefore allow the Husband’s request and order that the Wife disclose all financial documents relating to MD including, but not limited to:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_21-p2_a"></a>(a) Bank statements;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_21-p2_b"></a>(b) MD’s business monthly income and expenses statement;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_21-p2_c"></a>(c) Supporting documentation of MD’s business financial declaration filed annually to the Registry of Companies.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22 These documents are certainly relevant and necessary to allow the Husband, as well as the court, to assess the Wife’s means. This will have a direct bearing on issues such as maintenance. However, I make no order in respect of the Wife’s IRAS statements given that those have already been disclosed in her AOM.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23 I come now to Item 3.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_5" id="Ftn_5_1"><sup>[note: 5]</sup></a></span> This was a request for the Wife to provide all documents to prove her claimed expenses for MD.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_6" id="Ftn_6_1"><sup>[note: 6]</sup></a></span> Given the extent of the disclosure I have ordered (see above at [21]), I make no order in respect of Item 3.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24 I turn now to Item 4.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_7" id="Ftn_7_1"><sup>[note: 7]</sup></a></span> The Husband is seeking documents relating to the two properties that the Wife has in Vietnam. Specifically, the Wife is asked to provide documents:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_24-p2_a"></a>(a) Showing the description of the property, the property title and value;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_24-p2_b"></a>(b) Relating to the sale of the properties.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25 As I understood it, the Husband has two main reasons for wanting these documents. First, to determine when these properties were bought. This had a bearing on whether these properties should be included in the matrimonial pool of assets. Second, if these two properties were sold, whether the sales proceeds should be added back into the matrimonial pool. In this vein, the Husband claimed that contributed $80,000 towards acquiring the second property.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_26"></a>26 Mr Teo’s response was that disclosure should not be ordered as these two properties, having been transferred to the Wife’s mother, could not be considered as matrimonial assets.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_27"></a>27 It is well established that it is for the court hearing the ancillary matters to decide what constitutes a matrimonial asset. As I had observed in an earlier decision, parties have to strictly observe their disclosure obligations and cannot tailor the extent of their disclosure in accordance with their own views on what constitutes their matrimonial assets: <em>WWS v WWT</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31488-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 24</a> at [81] citing <em>UZN v UZM</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/25771-SSP.xml')">[2021] 1 SLR 426</a> at [17]. In any event, it cannot be seriously disputed that the documents which the Husband seeks are clearly relevant to the disposal of the ancillary matters.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_28"></a>28 I therefore allow the Husband’s request in respect of Item 4.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_29"></a>29 I turn now to the Husband’s request in Item 5<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_8" id="Ftn_8_1"><sup>[note: 8]</sup></a></span> and 6.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_9" id="Ftn_9_1"><sup>[note: 9]</sup></a></span> Both these requests relate to the Wife’s expenses on the children.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_30"></a>30 In respect of Item 5, the Husband is asking for documentary evidence of all expenses for A for the last 6 months. During the hearing, the Husband explained that he wanted these documents because the Wife had claimed, as part of her expenses, certain sums spent on A, but had not provided any documents evidencing the same.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_31"></a>31 In respect of Item 6, the Husband is asking that the Wife provide the “school fee receipt or statement of payment” to prove that she had paid [X]’s school fees of $740 as she claims to have done in her AOM. The Husband explained that he had proof that he was the one who had paid [X]’s school fees, and that the Wife was simply trying to inflate her claim.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_32"></a>32 In response, Mr Teo explained that in respect of Item 5, the Wife had already disclosed the documents in her AOM. As for Item 6, the Wife’s position was that she no longer had those documents because she would dispose of them once the school term had ended.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_33"></a>33 The golden rule of litigation, that he or she who asserts must prove their case, applies equally to the hearing of ancillary matters. Any argument that the Wife has not adduced evidence to back up claims made in her AOM is best ventilated at the hearing of the ancillary matters. In that connection, the discovery process should not be used as a means of testing the veracity of the other party’s claims (see <em>WYI v WYJ</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31642-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 39</a> at [60]).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_34"></a>34 The Husband’s request in respect of Items 5 and 6 is disallowed.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_35"></a>35 I come now to the Husband’s request in Item 7.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_10" id="Ftn_10_1"><sup>[note: 10]</sup></a></span> The Husband wanted the Wife to provide documentary evidence to show that she had paid about $1000 per month for the water and electricity bills. Again, the Husband explained that the Wife had provided no evidence to back up her claims. On the contrary, he claimed to have evidence showing that she did not pay these bills.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_36"></a>36 I disallow the Husband’s request in Item 7. As I have explained above (at [33]), if the Wife claims to have borne certain expenses, she has the onus of proving the same.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_37"></a>37 The Husband’s final request in Item 8<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_11" id="Ftn_11_1"><sup>[note: 11]</sup></a></span> was for the Wife to provide documents relating to her business in Vietnam which she says provides her with a source of income.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_38"></a>38 As I had noted above (at [18]), the Wife had not provided any documents relating to this income which she is allegedly receiving from her business in Vietnam. She had also not stated, in her AOM, the amount of money she was receiving from this business in Vietnam. I will therefore allow the Husband’s request in Item 8. These documents are certainly relevant and necessary to ascertaining the Wife’s means.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Husband’s Application for Interrogatories</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_39"></a>39 The twin principles of relevance and necessity also govern when the court will order interrogatories to be answered. In addition, it is also trite law that at this stage, the court is only concerned with the sufficiency of the answers that had been given, and not the <em>truth</em> of those answers (<em>WWS v WWT</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31488-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 24</a> at [27] – [30]).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_40"></a>40 The interrogatory framed in Item 1 was a request for the Wife to state her employment history for the past decade (from 2015 to 2024) with relevant details such as the employer name and monthly gross income.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_12" id="Ftn_12_1"><sup>[note: 12]</sup></a></span> In addition, if the Wife was self-employed during this time, she was also to state the nature of the business and the duration in which she was self-employed.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_41"></a>41 This was the response which the Wife had given in her voluntary response:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">As a husband, the Defendant should know better. The Defendant would be a complete failure if he is not aware of what the Plaintiff is working as.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_13" id="Ftn_13_1"><sup>[note: 13]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_42"></a>42 This is an insufficient answer. The Wife had clearly not answered the interrogatory. She had given a response that was sarcastic and insulting.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_43"></a>43 In any event, Item 1 was clearly relevant and necessary to the disposal of the ancillary matters hearing given what the Wife had disclosed in her AOM. While the Wife had disclosed that she was a beauty technician and had owned MD, she had provided no other details as to what she was working as before she had set up MD, and what other employment she had found after MD had closed down. It would be useful for both the Husband and the court to have a fuller picture of the Wife’s employment history – this was certainly central to assessing her means, and to determine if there had been any dissipation of matrimonial assets on her part.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_44"></a>44 I therefore allow the Husband’s request in respect of Item 1.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_45"></a>45 The interrogatory framed in Item 2 required the Wife to state details of her business venture in Vietnam – this included, amongst other things, the source of funds used for the business venture.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_14" id="Ftn_14_1"><sup>[note: 14]</sup></a></span> This interrogatory stems from what the Wife had disclosed in her AOM – that she had an inconsistent source of income from Vietnam.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_15" id="Ftn_15_1"><sup>[note: 15]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_46"></a>46 This was the Wife’s response:<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_16" id="Ftn_16_1"><sup>[note: 16]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <b>A</b>. <b>Please state the nature of the Business venture in Vietnam:</b> The Plaintiff had already closed down her business venture in Vietnam and the Plaintiff would like to claim losses as a result of being his wife.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <b>B</b>. <b>Business start date:</b> The Plaintiff had the Vietnam business from September 2023 to October 2023. The Plaintiff had already closed down her business venture in Vietnam.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <b>C</b>. <b>Business Participation:</b> The Plaintiff had no obligation to reply the Defendant as the business venture had already been closed down because as his wife, there was no time to do business.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <b>D</b>. <b>Business Funding Amount:</b> The Plaintiff had no obligation to reply the Defendant as the business venture had already been closed down, unless the Defendant agree to pay for the Plaintiff’s losses.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <b>E</b>. <b>Source of funds for business venture:</b> The Plaintiff had no obligation to reply the Defendant as the business venture had already been closed down.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <b>F</b>. <b>Income statement from business:</b> The Plaintiff had no obligation to reply and/or provide the Defendant with documentary evidence as the business venture had already been closed down.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_47"></a>47 It is clear that this response is insufficient. The Wife had not provided the details sought, except to state that the Vietnam business was in operation from September to October 2023. Apart from the fact that her answer was insufficient, it is also plainly provocative.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_48"></a>48 I will therefore allow the Husband’s request in respect of Item 2. The details of the Wife’s Vietnam business are indeed relevant and necessary to ascertaining her means at the hearing of the ancillary matter.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_49"></a>49 I come now to Item 3. This was a request for the Wife to state all the properties in which she either owned or had an interest in, and to provide details of the same.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_17" id="Ftn_17_1"><sup>[note: 17]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_50"></a>50 This was the Wife’s response:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">The Plaintiff did not know which properties the Defendant were talking about.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_51"></a>51 This is not, in my judgment, a sufficient answer. The interrogatory, as it is framed, is capable of either a positive or a negative answer. It is not sufficient to claim ignorance as to which properties the Husband is referring to.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_52"></a>52 I will therefore allow the Husband’s request in Item 3. I am satisfied that the interrogatory is indeed relevant and necessary to the hearing of the ancillary matters – specifically, determining which assets fell into the matrimonial pool.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_53"></a>53 I come now to Item 4.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_18" id="Ftn_18_1"><sup>[note: 18]</sup></a></span> The manner in which this interrogatory was framed suggested that the Husband was asking for the Wife’s monthly bank account statements.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_54"></a>54 During the hearing, the Husband clarified that he was actually asking the Wife to state the amounts in her bank account from February 2023 to February 2024.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_55"></a>55 This was the Wife’s response:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">The Plaintiff had already provided the bank statement for her 3 banks account in Singapore, for appropriate care and upbringing given to son.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_56"></a>56 Given that I had allowed the Husband’s request for the Wife to disclose her bank statements (see [13] above), I do not think that this interrogatory is necessary. The Husband’s request in respect of Item 4 is disallowed.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Orders Made</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_57"></a>57 In summary, these are the orders which I make in respect of SUM 1204:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_57-p2_a"></a>(a) The Wife shall state on affidavit, pursuant to Rule 63 of the Family Justice Rules 2014, in respect of the documents listed at paragraphs 3, 4, 6, and 10<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_19" id="Ftn_19_1"><sup>[note: 19]</sup></a></span> of the Husband’s Affidavit Application for Discovery 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_57-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 possession, custody or power, she is to state the reasons why, together with supporting documentation for her explanation (if any).</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_57-p2_c"></a>(c) The Wife shall answer the interrogatories as set out at paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 of the Husband’s Affidavit Application for Interrogatories, to the best of her knowledge, information and belief, pursuant to Rule 69 of the Family Justice Rules 2014.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_58"></a>58 The Wife is to file her compliance affidavit by 28 August 2024. Cost submissions for SUM 1204 are to be filed by way of letter, limited to a maximum of three pages each. This should be done no later than 28 August 2024. The time limited for filing an appeal shall only begin to run once I have issued my decision on costs.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Conclusion</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_59"></a>59 I must emphasise that the interrogatory process is not an opportunity for a party to hurl snide remarks. The manner in which the Wife had chosen to answer the interrogatories was completely unnecessary and only served to risk aggravating matters between the parties (see above at [41] and [46]). Such behaviour is unacceptable in our family justice system. To that end, parties are to, in their submissions on costs, address me on whether any costs ordered should also take into account the manner in which the Wife had chosen to answer the interrogatories that had been put to her.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_1_1" id="Ftn_1">[note: 1]</a></sup>Husband’s Affidavit Application for Discovery at para 3.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>Husband’s Affidavit Application for Discovery at para 4.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>Wife’s AOM at para 3(c) on p 3.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_4_1" id="Ftn_4">[note: 4]</a></sup>Wife’s AOM at para 4 on p 4.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_5_1" id="Ftn_5">[note: 5]</a></sup>Husband’s Affidavit Application for Discovery at para 5.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_6_1" id="Ftn_6">[note: 6]</a></sup>As set out at para 3(c) of the Wife’s AOM on p 3.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_7_1" id="Ftn_7">[note: 7]</a></sup>Husband’s Affidavit Application for Discovery at para 6.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_8_1" id="Ftn_8">[note: 8]</a></sup>Husband’s Affidavit Application for Discovery at para 7.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_9_1" id="Ftn_9">[note: 9]</a></sup>Husband’s Affidavit Application for Discovery at para 8.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_10_1" id="Ftn_10">[note: 10]</a></sup>Husband’s Affidavit Application for Discovery at para 9.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_11_1" id="Ftn_11">[note: 11]</a></sup>Husband’s Affidavit Application for Discovery at para 10.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_12_1" id="Ftn_12">[note: 12]</a></sup>Husband’s Affidavit Application for Interrogatories at para 4.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_13_1" id="Ftn_13">[note: 13]</a></sup>Husband’s Affidavit Application for Interrogatories at p 7.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_14_1" id="Ftn_14">[note: 14]</a></sup>Husband’s Affidavit Application for Interrogatories at para 5.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_15_1" id="Ftn_15">[note: 15]</a></sup>Wife’s AOM at para 4 on p 4.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_16_1" id="Ftn_16">[note: 16]</a></sup>Husband’s Affidavit Application for Interrogatories at pp 8 and 9.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_17_1" id="Ftn_17">[note: 17]</a></sup>Husband’s Affidavit Application for Interrogatories at para 6.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_18_1" id="Ftn_18">[note: 18]</a></sup>Husband’s Affidavit Application for Interrogatories at para 7.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_19_1" id="Ftn_19">[note: 19]</a></sup>These have been referred to in this judgment as Items 1, 2, 4, and 8.</p></div></content></root> | 1792 |
Links from other tables
- 1 row from _item in fc_judgments_version