fc_judgments: 82
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 82 | 3f86d375990956e3e31ad53b0fffabf8af434bf3 | [
"Family Law \u2013 Procedure \u2013 Costs"
] |
2024-09-09 | Family Court | Divorce No 1791 of 2023 (Summons No 1204 of 2024) | XBG v XBH | [2024] SGFC 81 | 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%2F32214-SSP.xml | [
"Teo Eng Thye (City Law LLC) for the plaintiff",
"The defendant in-person and unrepresented."
] |
2024-10-01T16:00:00Z[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/32214-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 81</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">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"> 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">Costs</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 SUM 1204/2024 (“SUM 1204”) was the Husband’s application for discovery and interrogatories. My decision in respect of SUM 1204 can be found in <em>XBG v XBH</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/32012-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 65</a>. This is my decision on costs of SUM 1204.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 The Husband, who was self-represented, argued that he should be entitled to costs of $695.60 (all in).<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 Counsel for the Wife, Mr Teo Eng Thye (“Mr Teo”) argued that it was the Wife who should be entitled to costs fixed at $3403.70 (all in). The basis of the Wife’s argument appears to be that the Husband had, by taking out his application for discovery and interrogatories, delayed proceedings and financially drained the Wife who had to incur costs in resisting his application.<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_4"></a>4 The starting point is that costs follow the event (<em>WXE v WXF</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31618-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 40</a> at [7] citing Rule 852 and 854 of the Family Justice Rules 2014). Given that the Husband had succeeded in obtaining orders in respect of the majority of the items in his application for discovery and interrogatories, he should be entitled to costs.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 There are no reasons to depart from this starting point. Insofar as the Wife appears to take the position that the Husband had delayed proceedings by filing his application for discovery and interrogatories, that is not a tenable argument in the present circumstances. The Family Justice Rules 2014 provide a framework by which discovery and interrogatories should be exchanged between parties on a voluntary basis. If a party is not satisfied with the extent of disclosure and the responses to interrogatories, they are entitled to apply to court. That was what the Husband had done in the present case and there is no suggestion that he had done so to delay proceedings.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 In any event, a look at the procedural history of SUM 1204 reveals that the Wife must also bear some responsibility in the delay of the hearing of this summons. At the case conference on 28 March 2024, directions were given to the Wife to file her affidavit in reply to SUM 1204 by 3 May 2024. At the subsequent case conference on 9 May 2024, Mr Teo had told the court that the Wife had not filed her reply affidavit. He explained that he was unable to take instructions from the Wife. Apparently, she was travelling and would only return at the end of June.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 Mr Teo had also told the court that the Wife had left sometime around the 15<sup>th</sup> of April 2024. As the court had observed at that case conference, it would have been abundantly clear to the Wife that directions had been given to her to file her reply affidavit.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 At the next case conference on 27 June 2024, the court fixed SUM 1204 for hearing before me in August. The reason for this was because the Husband had applied for legal aid,<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_3" id="Ftn_3_1"><sup>[note: 3]</sup></a></span> and he had informed the court that he was waiting to be assigned a lawyer from the Legal Aid Bureau.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 I do not take into account any delays occasioned by the Husband’s application for legal aid in my assessment of costs for SUM 1204. Parties are entitled to apply for legal aid. In such cases, some time may be budgeted for the Legal Aid Bureau to assess the application for legal aid, and for any assigned lawyers to come on board (see s 17 of the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1995 (2020 Rev Ed); <em>WXQ v WXR</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31583-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 35</a>). That was what had been done in the present case.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 What is relevant, in my view, is the Wife’s conduct. As I have already noted (above at [6] – [7]), she did not comply with the court’s deadlines to file her reply affidavit to SUM 1204. In addition to this, as I had noted in my grounds of decision on the substantive merits of SUM 1204, the Wife had not only provided insufficient answers to the interrogatories, some of her responses were also provocative, sarcastic and insulting. I reproduce a few examples of what the Wife had said (see <em>XBG v XBH</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/32012-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 65</a> at [41] and [46]):</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.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">…</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <b>A. 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-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 Taking this into account, I fix costs of SUM 1204 at $1100 (all in) which shall be paid by the Wife to the Husband by 30 September 2024. This award of costs not only reflects the Husband’s success in his application, but is also meant to signal that the taking of such adversarial and provocative stances are simply “not acceptable in [our] family justice system that adopts therapeutic justice”: <em>VVB v VVA</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/29144-SSP.xml')">[2022] 4 SLR 1181</a> at [26]; <em>WLR and another v WLT and another and other matters</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/29578-SSP.xml')">[2023] SGHCF 20</a> at [14].</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 Written Submissions dated 28 August 2024.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions at paras 7 and 9.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>The Certificate under s 17 of the Legal Aid and Advice Act was filed on 16 May 2024 to certify that the Husband had indeed applied for legal aid. See s 17 of the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1995 (2020 Rev Ed).</p></div></content></root> | 1809 |
Links from other tables
- 1 row from _item in fc_judgments_version