fc_judgments: 7
Data source: lawnet.sg/lawnet/web/lawnet/free-resources · About: hueyy/lacuna-db
This data as json
| _id | _item_id | tags | date | court | case-number | title | citation | url | counsel | timestamp | coram | html | _commit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | 4edf0937a4639c39e8490f05ba93a5ed6ecaef26 | [
"Family Law \u2013 Variation of Maintenance for child"
] |
2023-10-31 | Family Court | Divorce No 393 of 2012 and Summons No 695 of 2023 | VEF v VEG | [2023] SGFC 32 | 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%2F30605-SSP.xml | [
"Plaintiff was in Person.",
"Mr Leonard Loh with Ms Faustina Fernando of M/S Selvam LCC acted for the Defendant."
] |
2023-11-07T16:00:00Z[GMT] | Christine Lee | <root><head><title>VEF v VEG</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> VEF <em>v</em> VEG </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/30605-SSP.xml')">[2023] SGFC 32</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 393 of 2012 and Summons No 695 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">31 October 2023</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"> Christine Lee </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 was in Person.; Mr Leonard Loh with Ms Faustina Fernando of M/S Selvam LCC acted 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"> VEF — VEG </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Variation of Maintenance for child</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">31 October 2023</p></td><td><p class="Judg-Date-Reserved"></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p> <p class="Judg-Author"> District Judge Christine Lee:</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Introduction</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1 This case involved the Mother’s application in SUM 695/2023 to vary the Court Orders which related to the maintenance payable for the child of her previous marriage to the Father.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 The Mother’s application was heard over two hearing days whereupon I delivered my decision together with my brief reasons on 18 July 2023, allowing most of the Mother’s application.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 The Father filed an appeal on 31 July 2023 against my decision given on 18 July 2023. My reasons for allowing the Mother’s application and ordering some Costs against the Mother are set out after the Facts of the case below.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Facts </p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">The Parties </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 The Plaintiff Mother (“the Mother”) and Defendant Father (“the Father”) married on 22 October 2006 in Australia. In the Statement of Claim, both Parties were listed as citizens of the United Kingdom but in the Summons application, both Parties were listed with Singapore NRIC numbers. In response to my query, the Mother informed that she has Singapore Permanent Residency status but still holds United Kingdom citizenship. The Father’s Counsel informed that the Father’s status was the same.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 There is one child to the previous marriage namely, BCD (f) DOB XXX XXX 2007 now aged 16 years (“the said child”). The marriage lasted about 6 years before the Mother filed Writ of Divorce on 30 January 2012 in Singapore.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 Interim Judgement (“IJ”) for the divorce proceedings was subsequently granted on 8 October 2012 on an uncontested basis on the Statement of Claim and the marriage was dissolved by reason of the unreasonable behaviour of the Father. The Ancillary Matters were dealt with under the same IJ Court Order dated 8 October 2012 and accordingly, the Certificate of Final Judgement was issued on 9 January 2013. There was also a Variation Court Order dated 21 October 2021 that was relevant to the Mother’s application.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">The Parties cases</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 On 3 March 2023, the Mother filed <b><u>SUM 695/2023</u></b>, with 8 prayers, which included 3 sub-prayers in Prayer 8. However, I will only deal with the five Prayers relating to the Father’s appeal (being Prayers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6), beginning with Prayer 1 of the Mother’s application.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Prayer 1</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 The crux of the Mother’s application in Prayer 1 was to increase part of the fixed maintenance payable by the Father on the rental accommodation for the said child. I noted that the key difference between Prayer 1 of SUM 695/2023 and paragraph 3(a)(6) of the IJ Court Order dated 8 October 2012 was the increase from $850.00 (in the IJ Court Order) to $1,200.00 (in Prayer 1) and the addition of one phrase which reads as follows (italics in bold added to show the variation being requested):</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <u>Prayer 1</u>: That paragraph 3(a)(6) of the Interim Judgment dated 8 October 2012 (the “Interim Judgment”) shall be replaced by the following clause: “The Plaintiff is to be entitled to stay in the same residence until the Plaintiff chooses to move out. In the event that the Plaintiff and the Defendant are not residing on the same premises, the Defendant shall be liable to pay for a monthly sum of <b><em>$1,200.00</em></b> for accommodation costs of the Plaintiff and the said Child under such separate residence for so long as the said Child is residing in Singapore and until such times as the parties agree to send the said Child abroad for overseas studies. The Defendant shall bear all of the said Child's accommodation <b><em>and living</em></b> expenses if the said Child is sent abroad for overseas studies.”</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 The Mother submitted that the IJ Court Order figure of $850.00 was fixed some 10 years ago when the said child was 5 years old and that global inflation had increased for market rent by 30%<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span>. The Mother also submitted that there had been an increase in her rental from $2,600.00 per month to $3,900.00 per month for the same rental unit (which was a 3-bedroom unit) that she had been staying in with the said child since 2019. The increase in rental in the sum of $1,300.00 took effect from 1<sup>st</sup> May 2023<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_10"></a>10 The Father’s Counsel submitted that the Mother had not shown any material change in circumstances to warrant her application since the Settlement Agreement which had resulted in the Variation Court Order dated 21 October 2021<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_4" id="Ftn_4_1"><sup>[note: 4]</sup></a></span>. In summary, the Father’s Counsel submitted that there was a global agreement for the Variation Court Order, which was a Consent Order, and it was agreed at the time, being just 2 years prior in 2021, that the sum of $850.00 was still suitable so no change was made to this amount. It was also submitted that the Mother should downgrade to a 2-bedroom apartment so that she would not have to pay the increased rental of $3,900.00.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 The Father’s Counsel also relied on his Written Submissions in paragraph 6 that pursuant to paragraph 77 of the Family Justice Courts Practice Directions (“PD”), the Mother had failed to provide the required supporting documentary evidence for her application. However, the Father’s Counsel noted that the Mother’s Tenancy Agreement was exhibited in her 8 May 2023 Affidavit at page 92.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 The Mother responded that the increase in rental was a 1/3 difference. She also submitted that she and the said child had lived in the same unit since 2019 and the said child was very comfortable there. The Mother also informed that the said child was in the last year of her school and doing her N levels this year. It was submitted that the rental unit condominium was close to the said child’s school and the said child was very familiar with the bus routes and timings. The Mother also submitted that another unit in the same condominium, which was a 1-bedroom unit, was going for about $3,000.00, so it was not about the size of the unit<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_5" id="Ftn_5_1"><sup>[note: 5]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 At the next and final hearing on 18 July 2023, I confirmed that the directions that I had given at the previous hearing had been complied with. These were namely, that the Mother was to send by letter/email to the Court and copy to the Father’s Counsel, stating her estimated monthly income, her total list of monthly expenses and the said child’s total monthly expenses indicating what she was paying and what the Father was paying. The Father’s Counsel was also directed to provide by letter to the Court and copy to the Mother, their client’s current income (gross and nett) for the past 3 months with documentary proof and a list of his total monthly expenses, including what he was paying for the said child’s total monthly expenses.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 The Mother submitted that the total amount that she was paying monthly for the said child was at $1,081.00 maintenance plus the said child’s ½ share of the household expenses of $4,831.60 (being at $2,415.80) = $1,081.00 + $2,415.80 = $3,496.80 per month.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 The Father’s Counsel submitted that the Father’s current nett monthly income was at $16,690.00 which was less than what he had earned in 2021 at $18,470.00 which was a 10% decrease of his income when the global settlement was reached for the 2021 Variation Court Order. The Father’s Counsel reiterated that under this global settlement in 2021, the sum of $850.00 for accommodation provided in the 2012 IJ Court Order was not changed. The Father’s Counsel also submitted that the Father was paying $2,904.67 for the said child’s monthly expenses and that his personal total monthly expenses was at $13,755.00 which included the rental for both his Singapore apartment and his Riyadh apartment in Saudi Arabia where he was based.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 The Father’s Counsel further submitted that the reason why the Father had 2 apartments was because he travelled back to Singapore 4 times a year which largely corresponded to the 2 major Muslims festivals and 2 further times when expatriates were allowed to return to their home countries and work outside Saudi Arabia when the temperatures are very high in the summer months<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 The Mother challenged 6 items of the Father’s total monthly expenses as follows: (i) that the said child’s school fees were inflated by $65.00 per month as it was only at $523.00 and paid by the Father’s GIRO. (ii) the fact that the Father set aside dental expenses at $150.00 per month when the said child only had 2 dental check-ups a year. (iii) Similarly for medical expenses as the said child had no ongoing medical issues. (iv) it was not known what the miscellaneous sum of $166.67 per month was for and (v) why he was maintaining a helper at $1,650.00 per month when he was mostly overseas and (vi) his food expenses at $3,000.00 per month which was excessive.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 The Father’s Counsel responded that (i) on the school fees, the figure of $588.00 per month was the average of what the Father had been paying for the past 6 months. For points (ii) and (iii), the Father put aside $150.00 per month for medical and dental expenses each as this was set out as the cap for both items in Paragraphs 2(iii) and (iv) of the 2021 Variation Court Order<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_19"></a>19 On (iv), the Father’s Counsel submitted that this was in relation to the Paragraph 2(x) of the same 2021 Variation Court Order which was the cap for all other reimbursement claims at $500.00 per quarter so $500 ÷ 3 = $166.67 approximately for reimbursement claims under the same Court Order which was what the Father had set aside every month<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_8" id="Ftn_8_1"><sup>[note: 8]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20 On (v), the Father’s Counsel submitted that he did not have the breakdown for the helper’s expenses at $1,650.00 per month. However, it was submitted that the Father came back to Singapore 4 times per year and this was the same helper who had been with the family since the said child was born. Therefore, the helper had been with the family for 16 years and previously, when the said child came over to stay, this helper would take care of the said child<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_9" id="Ftn_9_1"><sup>[note: 9]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21 On (vi), the Father’s Counsel submitted that his instructions was that food costs in Saudi Arabia was quite high as a sandwich in Saudi Arabia costs $25.00 as compared to local food at about $5.00<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_10" id="Ftn_10_1"><sup>[note: 10]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Prayer 2</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22 For her application in Prayer 2, the Mother had applied for the following:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <u>Prayer 2:</u> Paragraph 2(v) of the Variation Court Order dated 21 October 2021 (the “Variation Court Order”) shall be replaced by the following clause: “All payment of tuition expenses shall be paid directly to the tuition centre – XXX Studio – at the tuition centre’s prevailing fees.”</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23 I noted that the previous clause was that “Unless otherwise agreed, all claims for reimbursement of tuition expenses shall be limited to the sum of S$610.00 per month. All tuition expenses beyond the said S$610.00 cap shall be payable only if the Defendant Father’s agreement is sought prior to such expenses being incurred.”</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24 The Mother submitted that at the time of the Variation Court Order, she did not check that the tuition fees would go up yearly and that it had now increased to $680.00 from $610.00 per month. The Mother confirmed that the tuition centre remained the same but submitted that she wished to remove the clause that the Father’s agreement was required as it was not up to her when the tuition fees would be increased as that was the price that the tuition centre was asking for<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_11" id="Ftn_11_1"><sup>[note: 11]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25 The Father’s Counsel submitted that firstly, this was a negotiated agreement in 2021<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_12" id="Ftn_12_1"><sup>[note: 12]</sup></a></span>. Secondly, if the Mother succeeded in her application, this would result in removing the Father’s rights to decide the appropriate level of tuition and the appropriate fees that he should pay. It was noted that the said child was now taking tuition for Maths and Science. It was submitted that if the Mother’s application was allowed, then the said child could go for more times a week or at a higher difficulty level or another type of tuition<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_26"></a>26 The Mother responded that the said child was only taking Science and Maths tuition. For Science it was once a week and for Maths, it was twice a week. The Mother informed that if the said child needed more classes, then this would be at no additional costs and the teachers at the tuition centre would decide if the said child needed more classes. The Mother submitted that the said child had previously taken additional classes at no additional costs and that the said child had been scoring As in both Maths and Science. So, this demonstrated that the tuition was working for the said child.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Prayer 3</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_27"></a>27 For her application in Prayer 3, the Mother had applied for the following variation:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <u>Prayer 3:</u> Paragraph 2 (vii) of the Variation Court Order shall be replaced by the following clause: “All payment of psychiatric expenses shall be paid directly to the clinic, capped at $2,400.00 per annum.”</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_28"></a>28 I noted that the previous clause had provided that “Unless otherwise agreed, all claims for reimbursement of psychiatric expenses shall be limited to the sum of S$600.00 per quarter (i.e., January to March, April to June, July to September and October to December). All psychiatric expenses beyond the said S$600.00 cap shall be payable only if the Defendant Father’s agreement is sought prior to such expenses being incurred”.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_29"></a>29 I also noted that in the Mother’s application, the total cap remained the same at $2,400.00, but that the Mother was asking to remove the Father’s agreement for all psychiatric expenses beyond the S$600.00 per quarter cap.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_30"></a>30 The Mother submitted that the reason for this variation was because the total amount of $2,400.00 per annum was not changed but for some quarters it was more than $600.00 and some quarters it was less than $600.00. The Mother submitted that she was just removing the Father’s control of $600.00 per quarter as she did not think that it would go beyond $2,400.00 per annum. The Mother also submitted that she was asking for payment to be made directly to the clinic because she did not get reimbursed in a timely manner<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_14" id="Ftn_14_1"><sup>[note: 14]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_31"></a>31 The Father’s Counsel submitted that he was prepared to accept the proposal for $2,400.00 per annum but his concern was what would happen if this exceeded $2,400.00. The Father’s Counsel submitted that anything beyond the sum of $2,400.00 should be agreed by the Father and if not, then the Mother should pay<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_32"></a>32 The Mother had no response to this<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_16" id="Ftn_16_1"><sup>[note: 16]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Prayer 4 </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_33"></a>33 For her application in Prayer 4, the Mother had applied for the following:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <u>Prayer 4:</u> Paragraph 2 (ix) of the Variation Court Order shall be replaced by the following clause: “The Defendant Father agrees to pay the Plaintiff Mother, by the last day of each month, the sum of S$150.00 per month in respect of the Defendant Father’s contribution towards BCD’s food and groceries expenses. The Defendant Father also agrees to pay into a joint bank account in BCD’s and the Defendant Father’s name, by the last day of each month, the sum of S$150.00 per month from October 2021 in respect of BCD’s pocket money and transport expenses. No receipts of spending of pocket money nor travel log are required.” </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_34"></a>34 I noted that the previous clause had provided that “The Defendant Father agrees to pay the Plaintiff Mother, by the last day of each month, the sum of S$150.00 per month for the months of October 2021 to October 2022 in respect of the Defendant Father’s contribution towards BCD’s food and groceries expenses. The Defendant Father also agrees to pay into a joint bank account in BCD’s and the Defendant Father’s name, by the last day of each month, the sum of S$150.00 per month from October 2021 in respect of BCD’s pocket money and transport expenses”.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_35"></a>35 I also noted that the variation being applied for was (i) that the Father was to continue to pay the sum of S$150.00 per month (which expired in October 2022) as his contribution towards the said child’s food and groceries expenses and (ii) that no receipts or travel logs were to be required for the spending of the said child’s pocket money and transport expenses.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_36"></a>36 The Mother submitted that for the payment into the joint account under the current Court Order, there was no requirement for receipts but that the Father would not allow any withdrawal of the money unless it came with receipts and travel logs <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_37"></a>37 The Father’s Counsel submitted that on the receipts and travel logs, referring to paragraph 29 of his Written Submissions, his first point was that the Father had not pre-conditioned any withdrawal by the said child. Secondly, there was a reason for this as there was a need to inculcate good spending habits in the said child. The Father did not see why it was wrong to require his daughter to pick up good financial habits<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_18" id="Ftn_18_1"><sup>[note: 18]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_38"></a>38 I noted that in paragraph 29 of the Father’s Counsel’s Written Submissions, it was stated that the said child had “displayed less than savoury behaviour involving the management and use of money in her care and that for a child with ADHD, having rules is important”.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_39"></a>39 The Mother responded that if these funds were easily accessible to the said child, the Father would have given her an ATM card and there had been no withdrawal by the said child for her pocket money and transport expenses for the past 2 years.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_40"></a>40 The Father’s Counsel responded that his instructions were that the Mother had not collected the ATM card from his client. The Mother replied that she was prepared to pick up the ATM card from the Father’s Counsel. As the Father’s Counsel had no objections to this. I directed that this be done before the next hearing.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_41"></a>41 At the next and final hearing on 18 July 2023, the Mother submitted that she was giving the said child $100.00 per month pocket money and the Father was also supposed to put the same amount of $100.00 into the said child’s account and $50.00 for the said child’s Ezy link card but he had not done so since October 2021<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_19" id="Ftn_19_1"><sup>[note: 19]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_42"></a>42 However, in response to my query, the Mother informed that she had not yet collected the ATM card as the Father’s Counsel had only just obtained the ATM card. The Father’s Counsel confirmed that the ATM card was now with them as stated in their 5 July 2023 letter and that the sum of $150.00 per month had been deposited into this account since October 2021.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_43"></a>43 The Mother reiterated that they should not be required to give the Father receipts and travel logs for the said child’s expenditure of this $150.00 per month as this was not in the original Court Order<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_20" id="Ftn_20_1"><sup>[note: 20]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Prayer 6</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_44"></a>44 The last issue of appeal was for Prayer 6 of SUM 695/2023, wherein the Mother had applied for the following:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <u>Prayer 6:</u> Costs of the application shall be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_45"></a>45 At the 14 June 2023 hearing, in response to my query on what costs and on what basis the Mother was asking for costs, the Mother responded that she had just copied this from a past summons variation.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_46"></a>46 However, the Father’s Counsel submitted that he was reserving his position on costs until the next hearing.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_47"></a>47 At the next hearing on 18 July 2023, the Father’s Counsel submitted that they were asking for Costs of $1,000.00 all in, which included the Disbursements component of $576.70 and that the filing of the Order of Court would be another $20.00 to $25.00. This was due to the Mother’s conduct for not agreeing to mediate this matter<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_21" id="Ftn_21_1"><sup>[note: 21]</sup></a></span>. The Father’s Counsel informed that at the first Case Conference, they had made it very clear that their client’s instructions was to seek mediation but the indication from the Mother was that she was not amenable to mediation<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_22" id="Ftn_22_1"><sup>[note: 22]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_48"></a>48 The Father’s Counsel submitted that this was not a reasonable position to take because (i) the last Court Order in 2021 was premised on a mediated settlement so there was no reason for the Mother to take the view that mediation was not viable for this case. (ii) if there had been mediation, he believed that there would have been a settlement on 2 major points firstly, the Australian passport issue, as all it took was the suggestion by the Court to bridge the gap between Parties on this issue.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_49"></a>49 The second issue was the enforcement prayer which was struck out by the Court. The Father’s Counsel submitted that they had stated from the beginning that this was the wrong forum for the enforcement prayer and if the matter had gone for mediation, the Mother would have been apprised of the correct legal position<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_23" id="Ftn_23_1"><sup>[note: 23]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_50"></a>50 The Mother responded that based on the October 2021 mediation, a lot of the agreed points were not adhered to by the Father. That was why she did not think that there was any point in going for mediation<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_24" id="Ftn_24_1"><sup>[note: 24]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Issues to be determined </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_51"></a>51 The Father’s appeal against my decision was set out in the Notice of Appeal as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_51-p2_i"></a>i. The Court's decision not to make the appropriate orders in respect the Plaintiff's breaches of the Family Justice Courts Practice Directions and lack of full and frank disclosure.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_51-p2_ii"></a>ii. In respect of paragraph 1 of FC/ORC 3272/2023, the order increasing the monthly sum payable for accommodation costs to $1,200.00.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_51-p2_iii"></a>iii. In respect of paragraph 2 of FC/ORC 3272/2023, the order increasing the monthly cap for tuition expenses to $680.00 and for direct payment to XXX.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_51-p2_iv"></a>iv. In respect of paragraph 3 of FC/ORC 3272/2023, the order for direct payment to the clinic for the said child's psychiatric expenses.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_51-p2_v"></a>v. In respect of paragraph 4 of FC/ORC 3272/2023, the order that “<em>No receipts for the spending of the said child's pocket money nor travel log are required</em>"; and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_51-p2_vi"></a>vi. The order on costs made at paragraph 7 of FC/ORC 3272/2023, including the Court's decision not to take into account the Plaintiff's breaches of the Family Justice Courts Practice Directions and lack of full and frank disclosure.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Issue 1</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_52"></a>52 The first ground of appeal relates to the provisions of PD 77 wherein the procedural requirements of Supporting Affidavits are set out. The Father’s Counsel submitted that the Mother had failed to comply with PD 77(12) because she had failed to include various supporting documentary evidence. This was on the basis that the Mother was directed to provide the required supporting documentary evidence at the last Case Conference on 18 May 2023.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_53"></a>53 I note that at the first hearing on 14 June 2023, under Rule 22(1)(b) of the Family Justice Rules 2014, I had directed that both the Mother and Father were to provide documentary proof of their current monthly income for the past 3 months and their total monthly expenses. This was because I was of the view that the increase in the sum of $350.00 (from $850.00 to $1,200.00) under Prayer 1 of the Mother’s application, did not require any further investigation of the Parties’ financial situation.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_54"></a>54 I had also noted that the Mother had filed a Supplementary Affidavit dated 8 May 2023 in which she had explained that IRAS had confirmed that there were no Notices of Assessment for YA 2021, 2022 and 2023 for her. In the same Affidavit, the Mother had also provided a copy of her Tenancy Agreement and the said child’s monthly expenses.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_55"></a>55 I had further noted that the Mother had filed another Affidavit dated 22 May 2023 exhibiting the past 3 months of her bank statements, which is in accordance with PD 77(12)(f). At the first hearing on 14 June 2023, the Mother had also explained that as a freelancer, she could only provide an estimate of her monthly income<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_25" id="Ftn_25_1"><sup>[note: 25]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_56"></a>56 I also took note of the fact that the Mother was a Litigant in Person and accepted that she had complied with the procedural requirements of PD 77 to the best of her ability and there was no lack of disclosure on her part. Therefore, in my view, the Mother had submitted sufficient documentary evidence for me to make a decision on Prayer 1 of her application.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Issue 2</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_57"></a>57 The Father’s appeal was against Prayer 1 of the Mother’s application but only with regard to the portion of my Order increasing the monthly sum payable for the said child’s accommodation costs from $850.00 to $1,200.00 (an increase of $350.00 as noted earlier).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_58"></a>58 In my view, the key issue that I had to decide was whether there had been a material change in circumstances to warrant the Mother’s variation application and if the increase to $1,200.00 was a fair and reasonable amount for the Father to pay. I took note of the fact that the IJ Court Order when the sum of $850.00 was agreed upon, was made over 10 years ago in 2012 when the said child was 5 years old.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_59"></a>59 I also noted that the Mother had submitted that at the time of the IJ Court Order, she and the said child were still staying with the Father and not paying any accommodation costs. The Mother had also submitted that the increase in rent was in the sum of $1,300.00 from $2,600.00 to $3,900.00. I noted that this was a 50% increase from $2,600.00 whereas the Mother was asking for an increase of $350.00 which was an increase of about 40% from the original sum of $850.00.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_60"></a>60 In my view, the material change in circumstances was that the original agreed amount in the sum of $850.00 was made over 10 years ago and that after the Mother and said child had to move into their own accommodation with effect from April 2018, there was a global increase in rental fees.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_61"></a>61 I also noted the Father’s Counsel’s submission that the accommodation portion in the sum of $850.00 had remained unchanged under the mediated global settlement agreement in October 2021. However, the rental increase to $3,900.00 per month only took effect in May 2023, which was more than 1½ years after the mediated global settlement was reached. Therefore, it was not an issue which existed at the time of the mediated settlement in 2021.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_62"></a>62 In my view, it was in the said child’s best interests to ensure that the said child, who had lived in the same premises since April 2019, continued to feel stable and secure in her home, especially when she was going to be taking her N levels this year.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_63"></a>63 I was also of the view that the increased sum of $350.00 per month was not a large sum and within the Father’s financial capacity to pay, after taking into account what the Mother was also paying for the said child’s monthly expenses.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Issue 3</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_64"></a>64 The Father’s appeal was against Prayer 2 of the Mother’s application regarding the portion of my Order increasing the monthly cap for the said child’s tuition expenses from $610.00 to $680.00 and for direct payment to the tuition centre, being XXX.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_65"></a>65 In my view, the Mother’s explanation was reasonable and I accepted that she did not realise that she should have checked that the tuition fees would go up yearly. I noted that since the time of the Variation Court Order dated 21 October 2021, the said child’s tuition expenses had only increased by $70.00 per month within a 1½ year period. So, this was not an annual increase in the tuition fees.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_66"></a>66 In my view, there was no dispute that this tuition was beneficial for the said child. Therefore, I allowed the Mother one free pass and partially granted her application in that I accepted that she had not factored in an increase in the Maths and Science tuition fees for the said child and that $70.00 per month was reasonable.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_67"></a>67 However, I also agreed with the Father’s Counsel that the Father should not be made liable for any additional increases of the said child’s tuition fees or any additional tuition subjects that may be required by the said child without obtaining his prior written consent. In order to prevent further acrimony between the Parties, I agreed that the Father should pay the tuition centre directly. In my view, this would give the Father greater autonomy on this issue of the said child’s tuition.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Issue 4</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_68"></a>68 The Father’s appeal was against Prayer 3 of the Mother’s application regarding my Order for direct payment to the clinic for the said child's psychiatric expenses. It was not disputed and in fact, the Father’s Counsel agreed to accept the Mother’s request for the sum to be set at $2,400.00 per annum for the said child's psychiatric expenses. However, the Mother had asked for payment to be made directly to the clinic because she did not get reimbursed in a timely manner..</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_69"></a>69 In my view, the said child’s psychiatric expenses was clearly a necessary expense as it was provided for in the mediated global agreement of the Variation Court Order dated 21 October 2021 that the Father’s Counsel had raised several times during the hearings. Again, my intention was to prevent further acrimony between the Parties. Hence, I ordered direct payment by the Father to the clinic.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Issue 5</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_70"></a>70 The Father’s appeal was against Prayer 5 of the Mother’s application regarding my Order that “<em>No receipts for the spending of the said child's pocket money nor travel log are required</em>" (italics added in the Notice of Appeal).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_71"></a>71 I noted that the Father’s Counsel had raised several times during the hearings, that there was a mediated global agreement which had resulted in the Variation Court Order dated 21 October 2021. In my view, if it was such an important requirement for the Father to have these receipts and travel logs, then it should have been included in the mediated global agreement of the Variation Court Order dated 21 October 2021. At the time, the said child was already 14 years old and it would have been the opportune time to make the said child financially aware of good spending habits.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_72"></a>72 I was also of the view that it was not up to the Father to dictate his own terms for the implementation of a Court Order obligation. Therefore, I allowed the Mother’s request that no receipts or travel logs were required as this was not a legal requirement in the mediated Variation Court Order dated 21 October 2021.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Issue 6</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_73"></a>73 The Father’s appeal was against Prayer 6 of the Mother’s application regarding my order on costs. In the Notice of Appeal, this was referred to as “the order on costs made at paragraph 7 of FC/ORC 3272/2023, including the Court's decision not to take into account the Plaintiff's breaches of the Family Justice Courts Practice Directions and lack of full and frank disclosure.”</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_74"></a>74 I had ordered costs against the Mother because this matter could have been resolved earlier if she had agreed to go for mediation. Therefore, the order of costs was made against the Mother for the additional time taken and delay in completing this matter. However, as there was no inordinate delay in this matter, I was of the view that the sum of $500.00 as costs against the Mother, would suffice.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_75"></a>75 I have already addressed the issue of PD 77 under the first issue above. I have also stated above that I did not find any lack of disclosure by the Mother.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Conclusion</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_76"></a>76 My Court Order with brief reasons, were sent to Mother and Father’s Counsel by RN on 18 July 2023. I have nothing further to add to my reasons given above.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>See Notes of Evidence at page 6 in lines 13 to 20 of Day 1 on 14 June 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>See Notes of Evidence at page 9 in lines 8 to 21 of Day 1 on 14 June 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_4_1" id="Ftn_4">[note: 4]</a></sup>See Notes of Evidence at pages 10 to 13 in line 20 of page 10 to line 5 of page 13 of Day 1 on 14 June 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_5_1" id="Ftn_5">[note: 5]</a></sup>See Notes of Evidence at pages 14 & 15 in lines 6 to 28 of page 14 and from lines 4 to 9 of page 15 of Day 1 on 14 June 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_6_1" id="Ftn_6">[note: 6]</a></sup>See Notes of Evidence at pages 10 & 11 in lines 10 to 32 of page 10 and from lines 1 to 16 of page 11 of Day 2 on 18 July 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_7_1" id="Ftn_7">[note: 7]</a></sup>See Notes of Evidence at page 13 in lines 4 to 14 of Day 2 on 18 July 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_8_1" id="Ftn_8">[note: 8]</a></sup>See Notes of Evidence at page 14 in lines 3 to 7 of Day 2 on 18 July 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_9_1" id="Ftn_9">[note: 9]</a></sup>See Notes of Evidence at page 16 in lines 7 to 28 of Day 2 on 18 July 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_10_1" id="Ftn_10">[note: 10]</a></sup>See Notes of Evidence at page 17 in lines 1 to 26 of Day 2 on 18 July 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_11_1" id="Ftn_11">[note: 11]</a></sup>See Notes of Evidence at pages 22 & 23 in lines 10 to 32 of page 22 and from lines 1 to 19 of page 23 of Day 1 on 14 June 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_12_1" id="Ftn_12">[note: 12]</a></sup>See Notes of Evidence at page 23 in lines 26 to 29 of Day 1 on 14 June 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_13_1" id="Ftn_13">[note: 13]</a></sup>See Notes of Evidence at page 8 in Section A from the transcript of the Judge’s own notes of Day 1 on 14 June 2023 as the Judge forgot to turn on the recording function after IT fixed some technical faults during the first part of the hearing. This is shown in the Notes of Evidence at page 24 in lines 6 to 11 of Day 1 on 14 June 2023 of the verbatim transcript.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_14_1" id="Ftn_14">[note: 14]</a></sup>See Notes of Evidence at page 9 in Sections A and B from the transcript of the Judge’s own notes of Day 1 on 14 June 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_15_1" id="Ftn_15">[note: 15]</a></sup>See Notes of Evidence at page 9 in Section C from the transcript of the Judge’s own notes of Day 1 on 14 June 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_16_1" id="Ftn_16">[note: 16]</a></sup>See Notes of Evidence at page 9 in Section C from the transcript of the Judge’s own notes of Day 1 on 14 June 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_17_1" id="Ftn_17">[note: 17]</a></sup>See Notes of Evidence at page 10 in Section C from the transcript of the Judge’s own notes of Day 1 on 14 June 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_18_1" id="Ftn_18">[note: 18]</a></sup>See Notes of Evidence at page 10 in Section E from the transcript of the Judge’s own notes of Day 1 on 14 June 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_19_1" id="Ftn_19">[note: 19]</a></sup>See Notes of Evidence at page 7 in lines 23 to 30 of Day 2 on 18 July 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_20_1" id="Ftn_20">[note: 20]</a></sup>See Notes of Evidence at page 26 in lines 14 to 25 of Day 2 on 18 July 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_21_1" id="Ftn_21">[note: 21]</a></sup>See Notes of Evidence at page 37 in lines 8 to 26 of Day 2 on 18 July 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_22_1" id="Ftn_22">[note: 22]</a></sup>See Notes of Evidence at page 38 in lines 1 to 2 of Day 2 on 18 July 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_23_1" id="Ftn_23">[note: 23]</a></sup>See Notes of Evidence at pages 38 & 39 of Day 2 on 18 July 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_24_1" id="Ftn_24">[note: 24]</a></sup>See Notes of Evidence at page 40 in lines 1 to 8 of Day 2 on 18 July 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_25_1" id="Ftn_25">[note: 25]</a></sup>See Notes of Evidence at page 6 in Section E from the transcript of the Judge’s own notes of Day 1 on 14 June 2023.</p></div></content></root> | 1274 |
Links from other tables
- 1 row from _item in fc_judgments_version