fc_judgments: 86

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
86 c6f793f86521451299251cc2f001f54178d984d7 
[
    "Family Law \u2013 Costs"
]
 2024-09-23 Family Court Divorce No 1469 of 2023 (Summons No 1769 of 2024) XCR v XCS [2024] SGFC 84 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%2F32251-SSP.xml 
[
    "The plaintiff in person and unrepresented",
    "The defendant in person and unrepresented."
]
 2024-10-08T16:00:00Z[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/32251-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 84</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">23 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">Costs</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">23 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 1769/2024 (“SUM 1769”) was the Wife’s application for discovery and interrogatories. My substantive decision can be found in <em>XCR v XCS</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/32204-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 77</a>. This is my decision on the costs of SUM 1769.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2       The Wife had, in her submission on costs, tabulated the sums incurred from the commencement of divorce to date. This includes sums for things such as her lost wages for January to September 2024. The total sum comes in at $33,400. The Wife, however, has not stated, in her submissions, whether she should be entitled to costs of SUM 1769, nor has she stated her position as to the quantum of such costs.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3       The Husband, on the other hand, submitted that costs should be awarded in his favour, fixed at $1,279.68 (all in). The costs that the Husband is seeking covers, amongst other things, his disbursements incurred in obtaining the various bank statements which he had disclosed in his reply affidavit to SUM 1769.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4       Where costs are concerned, it is trite that costs follow the event – in other words, the party who has succeeded in the proceedings is entitled to costs. That said, the court can depart from this starting point, taking into account all the relevant circumstances. It also bears noting that in family proceedings, the court may make no order as to costs with a view towards minimising acrimony and discontent between the parties: <em>WXE v WXF</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31618-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 40</a> at [7] – [8].</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5       In the present case, it is the Husband who is entitled to costs. This is because he had succeeded in resisting the Wife’s application for discovery and interrogatories – the Wife did not obtain orders in respect of the majority of the items that she sought.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6       In fixing the quantum of costs, I take into account the number of items that the Wife had sought in respect of her application for discovery and interrogatories. I also take into account the fact that some of the items which the Wife had asked for in SUM 1769 had not been raised in her earlier requests for discovery or interrogatories (“RFDIs”). This meant that the Husband never had the opportunity to provide voluntary disclosure. I do not take into account the disbursements which the Husband had incurred in giving discovery of the documents sought – after all, the “costs of complying with an order for discovery is generally borne by the party giving discovery”: <em>WZR v WZS</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31842-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 51</a> at [21].</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7       Costs are, in the circumstances, fixed at $1,500 (all-in). This sum is to be paid by the Wife to the Husband by 21 October 2024.</p> </div></content></root> 1814

Links from other tables