fc_judgments: 78
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 78 | 071b2a99e03536de86acae2f20974ce6bb6cb535 | [
"Family Law \u2013 Procedure \u2013 Discovery",
"Family Law \u2013 Procedure \u2013 Interrogatories"
] |
2024-09-09 | Family Court | Divorce No 1469 of 2023 (Summons No 1769 of 2024) | XCR v XCS | [2024] SGFC 77 | 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%2F32204-SSP.xml | [
"The plaintiff in person and unrepresented",
"The defendant in person and unrepresented."
] |
2024-09-27T16:00:00Z[GMT] | Soh Kian Peng | <root><head><title>XCR v XCS</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> XCR <em>v</em> XCS </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/32204-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 77</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 1469 of 2023 (Summons No 1769 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">09 September 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"> The plaintiff in person and unrepresented; 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"> XCR — XCS </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">9 September 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 Parties were married on Valentine’s Day in 2015. Almost five years later, the couple welcomed their son into their family.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 The Husband holds Chinese citizenship. He works as a portfolio manager. The Wife, on the other hand, is a Singapore citizen. She works as a teacher.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 The Statement of Particulars provides sparse details as to why the relationship between the parties had broken down. What it does say is that the Husband did not feel love or care from the Wife who would “lash out at him in anger if he does not meet her expectations in his thoughts, speech and action”. This made him feel “lonely in the marriage” and “sometimes anxious” in her presence. Compounding matters were their disagreements on the care of their child and finances.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 This led to the Husband filing for divorce on 29 March 2023. Interim judgment was granted on 28 July 2023. Parties embarked on the road to the hearing of the ancillary matters. It is against this backdrop that the Wife has taken out her application for discovery and interrogatories in SUM 1769/2024 (“SUM 1769”) against the Husband.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 I heard the matter on 27 August 2024. Both parties were self-represented at that hearing. I reserved judgment. This is my decision.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Discovery</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 It is trite law that discovery is only ordered where the documents sought are relevant and necessary to the disposal of the ancillary matters: <em>WWS v WWT</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31488-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 24</a> at [21] – [25]; <em>WXG v WXH</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31582-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 32</a> citing <em>UJN v UJO</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/21836-SSP.xml')">[2018] SGFC 47</a> at [10] citing Rules 63 – 77 of the Family Justice Rules 2014.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 The Husband had raised one preliminary objection to the Wife’s application in SUM 1769. He pointed out that the Wife had not given him the opportunity to provide voluntary disclosure as she had not served on him the relevant requests that she was now pursuing in SUM 1769.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span> On that basis alone, the Husband argued, at the hearing before me, that the Wife’s entire application should be dismissed.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 Indeed, Rule 63(4) of the Family Justice Rules 2014 provides that a party seeking discovery must indeed serve their written requests on the respondent:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(4) Before an application under paragraph (1) may be filed, the applicant must serve a written request on the respondent —</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(a) seeking discovery of the said document or class of documents, in the relevant Form; and</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(b) setting out in respect of each of such document or class</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 Rule 63(7) stipulates the conditions that must be met before an application for discovery may be made:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(7) No application under paragraph (1) may be made unless —</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(a) the time specified in paragraph (5) to serve the notice has elapsed, and the respondent has not served such notice;</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(b) the time specified in paragraph (6) to provide or make available the document or class of documents that the respondent has notified he is willing to provide discovery of has elapsed, and he has not provided or made available such document or class of documents; or</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(c) the respondent has notified that he is not willing or not able to provide discovery of the document or class of documents specified in the written request.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 It appeared to me that some of the requests which the Wife was pursuing in SUM 1769 had indeed been previously sought in her 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Request for Discovery and Interrogatories (“RFDI”) dated 19 March 2024 and 2 May 2024 respectively. However, the manner in which the Wife had framed her requests in SUM 1769 made it difficult to assess whether she was still pursuing discovery in respect of the items previously sought in her previous requests or if she had broadened the scope of discovery that she was asking for.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 On this basis, I do not think it could be definitively said that the Wife’s entire application was indeed procedurally defective as it did not comply with what was set out in Rule 63 of the Family Justice Rules 2014. Even accepting that it was indeed procedurally defective, as I had explained to the Husband during the hearing, I was minded to deal with SUM 1769 on its merits given that the application was already before me. Any quarrel the Husband may have about not being served with a voluntary request for RFDIs is something best ventilated in costs submissions for SUM 1769.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 I turn now to address the documents in respect of which the Wife was seeking orders for discovery which had been set out in her supporting affidavit for SUM 1769.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 Item 1 was a request for documents evidencing the Husband’s salary and bonus details during his employment with [X] as well as his income tax statement. The reason for this, according to the Wife, was that the Husband’s salary and bonus details for 2017, 2018 and 2023 were missing.<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_14"></a>14 The Husband’s position was that disclosure of these documents were not necessary because he had voluntarily disclosed his IRAS notice of assessment (“NOA”) for 2016 – 2023. The NOA would show his income for the year (including his salary and bonuses). In addition, the Husband also points out that his December 2023 payslip does state his net pay for the entire year.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 I will allow the Wife’s request in Item 1. These documents were relevant and necessary to determining the Husband’s means as well as ascertaining the size of the matrimonial pool of assets. The Husband is to disclose documents evidencing his salary and bonus details during his employment with [X] from May 2017 to August 2018, as well as his income tax statement from IRAS in 2024 showing how much he had earnt by way of salary and bonuses in 2023.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 I turn now to the Wife’s request in Item 2. This was a request for the Husband to produce statements from 7 bank accounts which, according to the Wife, belonged to him:<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_3" id="Ftn_3_1"><sup>[note: 3]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_16-p2_a"></a>(a) UOB account ending -37;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_16-p2_b"></a>(b) Citibank HK account ending -89;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_16-p2_c"></a>(c) Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) account ending -33 and -51;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_16-p2_d"></a>(d) OCBC account ending -001;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_16-p2_e"></a>(e) China Merchant Bank account ending -484;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_16-p2_f"></a>(f) UOB US account ending -9-1;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_16-p2_g"></a>(g) Bank of Communication account ending -54.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 For the UOB account ending -37, it is clear from the statements disclosed by the Husband in his first Affidavit of Assets and Means (“AOM”) that the Wife was a joint account holder. She should therefore be able to obtain the statements sought. I disallow the request in respect of this item.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 In relation to the Citibank HK account ending -89, the Husband had explained that this bank account was a custodian account of Tiger Brokers. This account was used to hold assets on the Husband’s behalf. The Husband had provided an email from Interactive Brokers, which was Tiger Broker’s clearing broker.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_4" id="Ftn_4_1"><sup>[note: 4]</sup></a></span> That email stated that this Citibank account ending -89 was used to hold the Husband’s assets – this included a deposit of HKD 10,000 on 3 January 2020.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19 The Husband had therefore sufficiently explained why he could not produce the bank statements for the Citibank account ending -89. I therefore disallow the request for statements from this account.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20 In relation to the ICBC account ending -33 and -51, the Husband had produced a letter from ICBC, addressed to the Family Courts, stating the accounts which he had with ICBC. It is clear from that letter that the two accounts ending -33 and -51 were not in his name. I therefore disallow the request for statements from this account.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21 For the OCBC account ending -001, the Husband had produced a letter from OCBC stating that the account had been inactive since 17 December 2017.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_5" id="Ftn_5_1"><sup>[note: 5]</sup></a></span> Given that the account was inactive since 2017, I disallow the Wife’s request for statements from this account.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22 As for the Wife’s request for the China Merchant Bank account ending – 484, the Husband had merely stated that he owned no such account and did not know why the Wife would think that he owned such an account. The Wife, on the other hand, disclosed a screenshot which was allegedly from the Husband’s personal device, showing a transaction from this account.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23 I have looked at the screenshot produced by the Wife. It shows a transfer of RMB 0.55 to [Y] (last digits -8484). The screenshot suggests that the account ending -8484 is not in the Husband’s name. I will therefore disallow the request for statements from this account.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24 As for the UOB US account ending -9-1, the Husband had disclosed a screenshot showing that the latest statement was in July 2019.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_6" id="Ftn_6_1"><sup>[note: 6]</sup></a></span> While it is clear that that account had been dormant for some time, it is also clear, from that screenshot, that the Husband is able to produce the statement for July 2019. I therefore order that the Husband disclose the July 2019 statement.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25 As for the Bank of Communication account ending -54, the Wife is asking for statements before 27 July 2020 and after 27 July 2023 up to March 2024. The Husband has already provided some 3 years’ worth of statements (from 27 July 2020 to 27 July 2023). I do not think it is necessary for the hearing of the ancillary matters that the Husband provide additional disclosure in respect of this account. The statements disclosed would give the Wife a picture of the comings and goings from this account. I therefore disallow the Wife’s request for these statements.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_26"></a>26 The Wife’s next request in Item 3 was for statements from the Husband’s Paylah, Union Pay, Alipay and WeChat pay accounts from 2015 – March 2024. In addition to this, the Wife also wanted the Husband to provide all “bank account details in China Mainland by using the enquiry function in Union Pay”.<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_27"></a>27 The Husband objects to this request. He says the Wife had not previously asked for it in either her 1<sup>st</sup> or 2<sup>nd</sup> RFDI. The Husband also points out that he had disclosed past three years’ bank statements for his accounts in China as well as the stored value in his Alipay account.<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_28"></a>28 Given that the Husband had indeed provided his bank statements, these statements are not, in my judgment, necessary to the disposal of the ancillary matters. In determining whether the documents are necessary, the court assesses the importance and relevance of the documents sought and the hardship to the party seeking discovery that is likely to be caused by the non-production of such documents: <em>WWS v WWT</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31488-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 24</a> at [24] citing <em>VTQ v VTR</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/26432-SSP.xml')">[2021] SGFC 85</a> at [26]. In this vein, I add that there is no need for the Husband to account for every single cent in every single account under his name. The documents which the Husband has disclosed, and which he has been ordered to disclose, should allow the Wife and the court to determine his means and the pool of matrimonial assets.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_29"></a>29 I come now to Item 4. This was a request for statements from several trading accounts which were allegedly held in the Husband’s name. The Wife wanted the statements from the time these accounts were opened till March 2024. The Wife’s requests were in relation to the following trading accounts in the Husband’s name:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_29-p2_a"></a>(a) Futu accounts ending -18 and -30;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_29-p2_b"></a>(b) Moomoo (Universal) account ending -89;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_29-p2_c"></a>(c) Moomoo (US) account ending -14;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_29-p2_d"></a>(d) UOB Kay Hian Pte Ltd account ending -02;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_29-p2_e"></a>(e) Tiger Brokers account ending -39;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_29-p2_f"></a>(f) Interactive Brokers account ending -88.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_30"></a>30 In addition, the Wife also wanted the Husband to:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_30-p2_a"></a>(a) provide all the bank accounts which had been used to fund these trading accounts;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_30-p2_b"></a>(b) confirm and provide documentary evidence in respect of the statements, profit and loss, net value and positions of the financial instruments that the Husband had invested in; and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_30-p2_c"></a>(c) provide documentary evidence of shares and stocks that the Husband had yet to disclose – this included the name of each stock and share as well as the quantity and value of each individual stock held. If the stock had been disposed of, the Husband was asked to provide the date of disposal as well as the whereabouts of the proceeds received.<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_31"></a>31 The Husband objects to this request on the basis that the Wife did not ask for these statements in her RFDI.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_32"></a>32 I disallow the Wife’s request in respect of Item 4 for the reasons set out below. The Husband had already provided disclosure of the stocks held in his trading accounts.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_10" id="Ftn_10_1"><sup>[note: 10]</sup></a></span> He disclosed that he had an account with Interactive Brokers, Tiger Brokers and Moomoo, as well as a Money Market Fund in China. The Wife had sought further disclosure in respect of these accounts – she essentially wanted the Husband to provide all the relevant statements since the opening of the account up till March 2024. Such disclosure was not, in my view, necessary given that the Husband had already provided the account statements up till the date of the interim judgment.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_33"></a>33 As for the UOB Kay Hian account, the Husband had produced an email thread showing his attempt to get the statements from UOB Kay Hian.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_11" id="Ftn_11_1"><sup>[note: 11]</sup></a></span> It is clear from the correspondence that as of September 2018, the balance in that account was zero. It is also clear that the Husband had done all he could to produce the statements from this account. I therefore disallow the Wife’s request in respect of this account.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_34"></a>34 Insofar as the Futu and Moomoo accounts were concerned, the Husband had also furnished correspondence from Moomoo’s customer service to support his explanation that all these accounts had been merged into a single universal account,<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_12" id="Ftn_12_1"><sup>[note: 12]</sup></a></span> and that he had already disclosed all the relevant statements. I accept his explanation and disallow the Wife’s request for these statements.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_35"></a>35 Finally, as for the additional requests that the Wife sought (above at [30]), that too is disallowed. How these accounts were funded would be clear from the bank statements that the Husband has already disclosed. In any event, the Husband also says that he had provided all the bank transfer records related to these stock accounts during the first two rounds of discovery.<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_36"></a>36 Insofar as the profit and loss statements as well as the value of the positions held are concerned, that would already be evident from the statements disclosed by the Husband.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_37"></a>37 Finally, as to the Wife’s blanket request for the Husband to disclose documentary evidence of the stocks and shares that he had yet to disclose, this was, in my view, a stab in the dark in the hope of striking gold. It is a principle of discovery that there must be <em>prima facie</em> evidence that the documents sought do indeed exist: <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]). I have not been referred to any such evidence, nor is it apparent to me, from the evidential record, that there is such evidence. There is therefore no basis on which to order discovery.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_38"></a>38 Item 5 required the Husband to confirm that he had not dissipated matrimonial assets by transferring them to his parents.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_14" id="Ftn_14_1"><sup>[note: 14]</sup></a></span> This request appears to be framed as an interrogatory.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_39"></a>39 In any case, the Husband’s position is that he had already stated that he did not transfer any money to his parents.<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_40"></a>40 I disallow the Wife’s request in respect of this item. The request, as framed, was not something that could properly be asked for in discovery. In any event, the Husband had provided an answer to her query – the Wife is well entitled to dispute that answer, but the proper forum to do so is at the hearing of the ancillary matters.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_41"></a>41 Item 6 was a request for the Husband to provide bank statements.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_16" id="Ftn_16_1"><sup>[note: 16]</sup></a></span> According to the Wife, although the Husband had disclosed some bank statements in respect of these accounts, she had a basis for asking for additional statements.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_42"></a>42 For example, in relation to the UOB account ending -5-8, there was a large sum of money that had been transferred through that account prior to 2019. The Wife thus wanted the Husband to provide the statements from January 2017 to December 2018. She had produced a screenshot showing two large transfers of USD 38,433.91 and USD 64,511.49 and another similarly large transfer of some USD 30,000 just a few days prior.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_43"></a>43 I disallow the request in Item 6. The Husband had already disclosed almost three years’ worth of statements. It must be borne in mind that the hearing of the ancillary matters is not an exercise in forensic accounting, nor is it an opportunity to ask the Husband to account for every single cent that had travelled through his accounts over the years.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_44"></a>44 That said, in relation to the UOB account ending -5-8, I order the Husband to explain the reasons for this transfer and to (if applicable) state the account to which those sums had been transferred. The Husband shall also provide the relevant documents in support. Given that those were large sums which were being transferred and it is certainly relevant and necessary to know the reasons for those transfers.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_45"></a>45 I shall deal with Items 7 and 8 together.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_46"></a>46 Item 7 was a request for the Husband to provide “one year’s groceries statements”.<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_47"></a>47 Item 8 was a request for the Husband to provide documentary proof of the expenses for taking the child on overseas trips.<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_48"></a>48 I disallow the request in Items 7 and 8. If the Husband takes the position that he has spent money on groceries for the household and on taking the child for holidays abroad, then he bears the onus of proving so.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_49"></a>49 Item 9 was a request for the Husband to state the bank name and account number of the account that he had used to fund his trading accounts, and to highlight the records of the relevant deposit and withdrawal of funds.<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_50"></a>50 I disallow the Wife’s request in respect of this item. The Husband had provided his statements for both his trading and bank accounts. It would be clear from those statements how his trading accounts had been funded.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Interrogatories</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_51"></a>51 I come now to the Wife’s request for interrogatories. In considering an application for interrogatories, I bear in mind the following two principles. First, that interrogatories are only ordered if they are relevant and necessary to the disposal of matters at the ancillary hearing. Second, the answer which is provided to an interrogatory only needs to be sufficient – the truth of the answer does not concern me: <em>WXY v WXZ</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31712-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 46</a> at [6] – [7] citing <em>UJN v UJO</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/21836-SSP.xml')">[2018] SGFC 47</a> at [10] citing Rules 63 – 77 of the Family Justice Rules 2014.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_52"></a>52 Item 1 was a request for the Husband to confirm that the bank statements were accurate and that he had not intentionally omitted any material factual information.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_20" id="Ftn_20_1"><sup>[note: 20]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_53"></a>53 In my judgment, it was not necessary for the Husband to answer this interrogatory. It was possible for the Wife to argue, based on the documents that had already been disclosed, whether the bank statements were accurate and whether the Husband had intentionally omitted any material information. I therefore disallow the Wife’s request in respect of this item.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_54"></a>54 I come now to Item 2. This was a request for the Husband to confirm if he had ever tried to hide matrimonial property for the benefit of his mistress or any other external party of the marriage.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_21" id="Ftn_21_1"><sup>[note: 21]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_55"></a>55 The interrogatory, as framed, ran the risk of distracting parties from the main issues at the ancillary hearing (<em>ie</em>, the division of assets and maintenance). As I had explained to the Wife during the hearing, this was because there was no mention of adultery by either party as the basis for the divorce. The Wife subsequently clarified that what she wanted to know was whether the Husband had ever transferred assets out of the matrimonial pool and to whom they had been transferred to.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_56"></a>56 The relevance of such an interrogatory is clear – it would have a bearing on the court’s assessment of the size of the matrimonial pool of assets. That said, I do not think that it is necessary for the Husband to answer this interrogatory. The Wife is already in possession of his bank statements as well as documents evidencing his income and statements from his trading accounts. These documents should give her a general picture as to the Husband’s finances and allow her to determine if he had been dissipating assets or hiding assets from her.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_57"></a>57 The Wife’s request in Item 2 is therefore disallowed.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_58"></a>58 I come now to the Wife’s request in Items 3,<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_22" id="Ftn_22_1"><sup>[note: 22]</sup></a></span> 4,<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_23" id="Ftn_23_1"><sup>[note: 23]</sup></a></span> 5,<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_24" id="Ftn_24_1"><sup>[note: 24]</sup></a></span> 6,<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_25" id="Ftn_25_1"><sup>[note: 25]</sup></a></span> and 7.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_26" id="Ftn_26_1"><sup>[note: 26]</sup></a></span> These interrogatories required the Husband to explain various transactions and to provide details of the same (<em>ie</em>, the purpose of the transfer and the recipient).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_59"></a>59 Although the Husband objects to these interrogatories on the basis that the Wife had not sought them in her previous RFDIs, he had provided answers to all these interrogatories.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_27" id="Ftn_27_1"><sup>[note: 27]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_60"></a>60 I have read the Husband’s answers and deem them to be sufficient answers in that he had set out details of the transfer, either in the explanation provided in the body of his reply affidavit to SUM 1769, or by reference to documents which he had exhibited. The Wife is entitled to dispute the truth of those answers, but this is not the proper forum for the ventilation of such arguments.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_61"></a>61 I therefore make no order in respect of Items 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Orders Made</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_62"></a>62 These are the orders which I make:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_62-p2_a"></a>(a) The Husband shall state on affidavit, pursuant to Rule 63 of the Family Justice Rules 2014, in respect of the following documents as set out at [15] and [24] of this judgment, 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_62-p2_b"></a>(b) 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 possession, custody or power, he is to state the reasons why, together with supporting documentation for his explanation (if any).</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_62-p2_c"></a>(c) In relation to the UOB account ending -5-8, the Husband shall also explain, on affidavit, the reasons for the transfers made on 6 and 12 April (as shown at Annex H of the Wife’s Affidavit in Support of SUM 1769) and to (if applicable) state the account to which those sums had been transferred. The Husband shall also exhibit the relevant documents in support of his explanation.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_62-p2_d"></a>(d) The Husband is to file his compliance affidavit by 1 October 2024.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_63"></a>63 In addition to the above orders, parties are to file their submissions on costs of SUM 1769 by 16 September 2024. This should be filed by way of letter, limited to a maximum of 3 pages each.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_64"></a>64 For the avoidance of doubt, nothing I have said here should be taken as binding the judge hearing the ancillary matters claim, and the time limited for filing an appeal shall begin to run once I have issued my decision on 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>Husband’s Reply Affidavit to SUM 1769 at para 6.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>Wife’s Supporting Affidavit for SUM 1769 at para 3.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>Wife’s Supporting Affidavit for SUM 1769 at para 4.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_4_1" id="Ftn_4">[note: 4]</a></sup>Husband’s Reply Affidavit to SUM 1769 at Tab 6.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_5_1" id="Ftn_5">[note: 5]</a></sup>Husband’s Reply Affidavit to SUM 1769 at p 70.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_6_1" id="Ftn_6">[note: 6]</a></sup>Husband Reply Affidavit to SUM 1769 at p 72.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_7_1" id="Ftn_7">[note: 7]</a></sup>Wife’s Supporting Affidavit for SUM 1769 at para 7.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_8_1" id="Ftn_8">[note: 8]</a></sup>Husband Reply Affidavit to SUM 1769 at paras 24 – 27.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_9_1" id="Ftn_9">[note: 9]</a></sup>Wife’s Supporting Affidavit for SUM 1769 at paras 8 – 11.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_10_1" id="Ftn_10">[note: 10]</a></sup>Husband’s 1<sup>st</sup> AOM at para 14 and Tab 8.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_11_1" id="Ftn_11">[note: 11]</a></sup>Husband’s Reply Affidavit to SUM 1769 at Tab 13.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_12_1" id="Ftn_12">[note: 12]</a></sup>Husband’s Reply Affidavit to SUM 1769 at Tab 12.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_13_1" id="Ftn_13">[note: 13]</a></sup>Husband’s Reply Affidavit to SUM 1769 at para 32.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_14_1" id="Ftn_14">[note: 14]</a></sup>Wife’s Supporting Affidavit for SUM 1769 at para 12.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_15_1" id="Ftn_15">[note: 15]</a></sup>Husband’s Reply Affidavit to SUM 1769 at para 34.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_16_1" id="Ftn_16">[note: 16]</a></sup>Wife’s Supporting Affidavit for SUM 1769 at para 15.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_17_1" id="Ftn_17">[note: 17]</a></sup>Wife’s Supporting Affidavit for SUM 1769 at para 16.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_18_1" id="Ftn_18">[note: 18]</a></sup>Wife’s Supporting Affidavit for SUM 1769 at para 17.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_19_1" id="Ftn_19">[note: 19]</a></sup>Wife’s Supporting Affidavit for SUM 1769 at para 19.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_20_1" id="Ftn_20">[note: 20]</a></sup>Wife’s Supporting Affidavit for SUM 1769 at para 25.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_21_1" id="Ftn_21">[note: 21]</a></sup>Wife’s Supporting Affidavit for SUM 1769 at para 26.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_22_1" id="Ftn_22">[note: 22]</a></sup>Wife’s Supporting Affidavit for SUM 1769 at para 27.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_23_1" id="Ftn_23">[note: 23]</a></sup>Wife’s Supporting Affidavit for SUM 1769 at para 28.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_24_1" id="Ftn_24">[note: 24]</a></sup>Wife’s Supporting Affidavit for SUM 1769 at para 29.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_25_1" id="Ftn_25">[note: 25]</a></sup>Wife’s Supporting Affidavit for SUM 1769 at para 30.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_26_1" id="Ftn_26">[note: 26]</a></sup>Wife’s Supporting Affidavit for SUM 1769 at para 31.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_27_1" id="Ftn_27">[note: 27]</a></sup>Husband’s Reply Affidavit to SUM 1769 at paras 58 – 62.</p></div></content></root> | 1806 |
Links from other tables
- 1 row from _item in fc_judgments_version