fc_judgments_version: 38

This data as json

_id	_item	_version	_commit	tags	date	court	case-number	title	citation	url	counsel	timestamp	coram	html	_item_full_hash
38	30	1	1309	[ "Civil Procedure \u2013 Discovery" ]	2024-05-13	Family Court	Divorce No 3366 of 2023 (Summons No 586 of 2024)	WWU v WWV	[2024] SGFC 26	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%2F31491-SSP.xml	[ "Sara Ng Qian Hui (Covenant Chambers LLC) for the Plaintiff", "Rina Kalpanath Singh, Cheryl Tan Wee Tim, Desiree Ang Li Jun (Kalco Law LLC) for the Defendant." ]	2024-05-17T16:00:00Z[GMT]	Soh Kian Peng	<root><head><title>WWU v WWV</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> WWU <em>v</em> WWV </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31491-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 26</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 3366 of 2023 (Summons No 586 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">13 May 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"> Sara Ng Qian Hui (Covenant Chambers LLC) for the Plaintiff; Rina Kalpanath Singh, Cheryl Tan Wee Tim, Desiree Ang Li Jun (Kalco Law LLC) 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"> WWU — WWV </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Civil Procedure</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Discovery</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">13 May 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-Heading-1">Introduction</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1 It was the year 2000. The dawn of a new millennium. It was also the year that the Husband left the matrimonial home following a heated disagreement with the Wife.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span> Since then, the Husband made no attempt to return home, or stay in touch with the Wife, save for instances where there were matters relating to their two children.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 As to why the Husband had left and cut off all contact with the Wife, there are no details disclosed in the Statement of Particulars (“SOP”). What is disclosed, however, is that the Husband rented another place nearby, while the Wife and two children continued to reside at the matrimonial home. It is also disclosed, in the SOP, that the Husband is the joint partner of a vehicle workshop, (“ABC”).<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span> ABC is in the business of providing repair and maintenance services for heavy commercial vehicles.<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_3"></a>3 Although the Husband was estranged from the Wife, he appears to have maintained a close relationship with the two children. The fact that his son filed an affidavit detailing his contributions to the family spoke to this.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 The passing of time, however, did little to heal the rift between the Husband and the Wife. After more than twenty years apart, the Husband filed for divorce on 17 July 2023. Interim judgment was granted on 25 October 2023. All that was left to be settled were the ancillary matters. To that end, the matter was fixed for mediation. Realising that they were unlikely to find common ground, parties decided to abandon mediation and embark on the road to an ancillary hearing. Parties thus filed and exchanged their Affidavit of Means (“AOMs”). Subsequently, they exchanged requests for discovery and interrogatories.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 The Wife, being dissatisfied with the Husband’s responses to her request for discovery, filed SUM 586/2024 (“SUM 586”). She sought the disclosure of the following documents:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_5-p2_a"></a>(a) Balance Sheets and the valuation report of ABC;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_5-p2_b"></a>(b) Statements of the Husband’s personal bank accounts;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_5-p2_c"></a>(c) Receipts supporting cash withdrawals from the Husband’s personal bank account;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_5-p2_d"></a>(d) In relation to the Husband’s insurance policies, the complete insurance policy contract as well as the projected benefit illustration of each policy.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 In addition to the disclosure of the above-mentioned documents, the Wife also asked for a valuation expert to be appointed to value ABC, and that the costs of the valuer be borne by the parties equally.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 I heard oral arguments on 6 May 2024. This is my decision in respect of the Wife’s application in SUM 586.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">The Wife’s application for discovery </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 I deal, first, with the Wife’s application for discovery.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 The first two items that the Wife sought disclosure of were the balance sheets and valuation report of ABC. Counsel for the Husband argued that these items should not be disclosed because ABC was not a matrimonial asset. The Husband had inherited ABC from his father, and had been added as a partner, well before parties were married.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 This is not a sustainable argument. It is clear that parties must strictly observe their disclosure obligations and cannot tailor the scope of disclosure based on their own views of what a matrimonial asset is: <em>UZN v UZM</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/25771-SSP.xml')">[2021] 1 SLR 426</a> (“<em>UZN</em>”) at [17].</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 There is, however, a more important point – that is: what are the sort of documents of a partnership that may be disclosed in the context of an application for discovery in support of an ancillary hearing? There is case law, in the context of commercial litigation, which suggests that certain documents of a partnership may not be disclosed without the consent of the other partners who are not a party to the suit. One such example may be found in <em>Hadley v Mcdougall</em> [1872] L.R 312 (“<em>Hadley</em>”). In that case, the plaintiff had applied for the account of partnership transactions entered into by himself and the defendant for the supply of harnesses to the French government. The defendant was in a partnership with his father, who had no interest in that particular transaction that formed the subject of the suit. The accounts of the relevant transactions, however, appeared to have been entered in the partnership books of the defendant and his father.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 Vice-Chancellor Malins had ordered the partnership books to be disclosed. The defendant appealed, and succeeded. The court ruled that an order of production of documents could not be made on a person who was not a party to the suit.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 In contrast to <em>Hadley</em> is the case of <em>G v G (Financial Provision: Discovery)</em> [1992] 1 FLR 40 (“<em>G</em>”). In that case, the husband, who was a lawyer, had recently jointed a firm of solicitors as a partner. The partnership deed had yet to be drawn up. The wife sought disclosure of the partnership deed. District Judge Conn granted the application. The husband appealed on the basis that the court could not order the disclosure of documents not currently in existence. Bracewell J dismissed the appeal, finding that the court’s powers were not limited to such documentation that was already in existence.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 The point which may be distilled from the cases cited above is that where disclosure of partnership documents is sought, the question is whether the other partners to the partnership also have a right or interest in the document that is sought to be disclosed (see <em>In re Pickering</em> [1883] 25 Ch D 247). If they do, then disclosure would be disallowed, though the court could, in that case, allow an interrogatory as to the contents of the document sought: <em>B v B (Matrimonial Proceedings: Discovery)</em> [1978] Fam 181 at p 187.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 In the case of partnership books, s 24(i) of the Partnership Act 1980 makes it clear that all partners to the partnership shall have “access to and inspect and copy them”. The documents sought in the present case before me, however, are balance sheets. They are accounting documents. The Wife has asked for them because she wants to put a value on the Husband’s share of ABC. These documents are quite different from the partnership books that were sought in <em>Hadley</em>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 For completeness, I note that the Husband has resisted disclosure on the basis that there are no balance sheets. He had stated, in his reply affidavit, as well as written submissions, that ABC does not have a balance sheet.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_4" id="Ftn_4_1"><sup>[note: 4]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 The Husband cannot run from his disclosure obligations by virtue of such bare assertions. The twin criteria that must be satisfied to obtain an order for discovery are that of relevance and necessity: <em>UJN v UJO</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/21836-SSP.xml')">[2018] SGFC 47</a> at [10]. If the document is relevant and necessary for the disposal of the ancillary matters, it should be disclosed.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 In the circumstances, I will allow the Wife’s request for the balance sheets of ABC for AY 2021, 2022 and 2023. The balance sheets sought are indeed relevant and necessary to determining the value of the Husband’s share in ABC.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19 In light of the above, I will disallow the Wife’s request for the valuation report.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20 I come now to the next set of documents which the Wife sought – these were statements of the Husband’s two personal bank accounts with POSB from January 2023 to August 2023. Her request stems from the suspicion that the Husband had dissipated matrimonial assets. There were, according to her, a number of highly unusual transactions involving large sums of money, to his son and sister.<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_21"></a>21 The Husband resisted disclosure on the basis that the Wife had no basis to allege that there had been dissipation of matrimonial assets. He referred to the Court of Appeal (“CA”) decision in <em>BOR v BOS and another appeal</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/22441-SSP.xml')">[2018] SGCA 78</a> (“<em>BOR</em>”) where the court had observed, at [76], that “not every unexplained withdrawal or decrease in value in a bank account over time will be sufficient to raise a prima facie case of dissipation”. He also referred to the decision in <em>Tan Yen Chuan (m.w.) v Lim Theam Siew</em> [2014] SGHC 110 at [32] and [33] where the court had taken the view that focussing on the movement of large sums of money was a more reliable forensic approach of uncovering any dissipation of assets.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22 I do not think that discovery can be resisted on the Husband’s mere insistence, at the interlocutory stage, that the Wife had no basis to allege that assets had been dissipated. As the CA had noted in <em>BOR</em> at [76], whether there has been dissipation is a “fact-sensitive matter and the court will consider the evidence in the context of the parties’ habits, lifestyles, business activities, and amount of the withdrawal(s) in relation to the total value of the matrimonial assets in question”. Simply put, this is a matter to be decided by the judge hearing the ancillary matters. The corollary of this is that all the relevant and necessary evidence must be placed before that judge. This is where the discovery process comes into play. In that vein, it is useful for both the court, and the Wife, to have a snapshot of the Husband’s financial circumstances shortly before the marriage broke down till the period after divorce proceedings had been filed: <em>Tan Bin Yong Christopher v Ng Lay Mui (m.w.) and other cases</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/25533-M.xml')">[2003] SGDC 306</a> at [19].</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23 I will allow the Wife’s request for the bank statements. The period of disclosure sought by the Wife is, in my view, a reasonable and sensible one. It covers the immediate period preceding the Husband’s filing of the divorce and a month after the divorce had been filed. There can also be no quarrel as to the relevance and necessity of these documents – any dissipation of assets would, in all likelihood, be reflected in the statements.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24 The next set of documents sought were the receipts supporting cash withdrawals from the Husband’s personal bank account. Counsel for the Wife explained that the Wife was essentially asking for documentary proof as to what the Husband had spent the cash on. In short, the Wife wanted an explanation as to what the cash had been spent on.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25 I will disallow the request. The disclosure of such documents was not necessary given that I have already ordered the disclosure of the Husband’s bank statements. In any event, if the Wife wanted an explanation as to what the cash had been spent on, that could have been pursued by way of interrogatories rather than discovery.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_26"></a>26 I now come to the final set of documents that the Wife has asked for. These are documents relating to the Husband’s insurance policies, specifically, three insurance policies that the Husband had with Manulife. This, once again, stems from Wife’s suspicion that the Husband has been dissipating assets because the surrender value of these policies were low compared to the premiums paid. She has therefore sought disclosure of the complete insurance policy contracts along with the projected benefit illustration.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_27"></a>27 The Wife’s request is disallowed. I did not see how the documents which the Wife asked for were relevant. The contracts would only disclose the extent of the obligations between the Husband and the insurance company. They would not actually show whether the Husband had, for example, taken out loans from his insurance policies. I will instead order the Husband to disclose the statement of any payouts he has received from these three insurance policies.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Appointment of a valuation expert</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_28"></a>28 I turn now to deal with the Wife’s request that a valuation expert be appointed.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_29"></a>29 Parties disputed the appointment of a valuation expert on the basis that ABC was not a matrimonial asset.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_6" id="Ftn_6_1"><sup>[note: 6]</sup></a></span> This quite misses the point. The law makes it abundantly clear that it is the court which hears the ancillary matters that decides whether the asset in dispute is indeed a matrimonial asset. It is not for parties to say that a valuation expert should not be appointed because they have taken the view that the asset in dispute is not a matrimonial asset.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_30"></a>30 The more pertinent question was whether there was any legal basis to appoint such an expert. Rule 630 of the Family Justice Rules 2014 (“FJR”) is relevant. It states:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <b>Appointment of expert to report on certain question</b> </p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">630.—(1) In any cause or matter in which any question for an expert witness arises, <b>the Court may at any time, on its own motion or on any party’s application, appoint an independent expert or, if more than one such question arises, 2 or more such experts</b>, to inquire and report upon any question of fact or opinion not involving questions of law or of construction.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(2) An expert appointed under this Division or under rule 555 shall be referred to as a court expert.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(3) Any court expert in a cause or matter, if possible, is to be a person agreed between the parties and, failing agreement, is to be nominated by the Court.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(4) The question to be submitted to the court expert and the instructions (if any) given to him is, failing agreement between the parties, to be settled by the Court.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(5) In this rule, “expert”, in relation to any question arising in a cause or matter, means any person who has such knowledge or experience of or in connection with that question that his opinion on it would be admissible in evidence.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[emphasis added]</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_31"></a>31 This Rule is derived from O 40 r 1 of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) (“ROC 2014”): Chen Siyuan, Eunice Chua, Lionel Leo, <em>Family Procedure in Singapore</em> (LexisNexis, 2018) (“<em>Family Procedure in Singapore</em>”) at [630.01]. In the context of civil litigation, O 41 r 1 acts as a safety net to avoid a situation where the court is left without the aid of expert evidence in cases where the experts appointed by each party has given contradictory questions on technical issues: <em>Singapore Civil Procedure 2021 vol 1</em> (Cavinder Bull gen ed) (Sweet & Maxwell, 2021) (“<em>White Book</em>”) at [40/1/2]. In the context of family proceedings, some have taken the view that the court should, given the benefits offered by a court-appointed expert, “consider using its appointment powers under this rule more liberally since it is given a strong mandate to manage cases and reduce acrimony”: <em>Family Procedure in Singapore</em> at [630.01].</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_32"></a>32 There is much force to this view. It does not, however, mean that a valuation expert should be appointed in every case. The decision to appoint an expert under Rule 630 lies in the court’s discretion, and in this connection, the cost of doing so is one very relevant consideration (see <em>White Book</em> at [40/1/2] citing Maugham L.J. in <em>Fishenden v Higgs & Hill Ltd</em> [1935] All E.R. 435 at p 452). For example, if it will cost $10,000 to value a company whose estimated value is approximately $50,000, it is unlikely that the court will order that an expert be appointed unless there are other circumstances that weigh in favour of such an appointment being made.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_33"></a>33 Given that I have already granted the Wife’s request for disclosure of ABC’s balance sheets, I did not think it necessary for a valuation expert to be appointed at this stage. The balance sheets would shed light on the valuation of ABC.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Conclusion </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_34"></a>34 I therefore order the following:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_34-p2_a"></a>(a) That the Plaintiff be required to state on affidavit pursuant to Rule 63 of the Family Justice Rules 2014, in respect of each of the following documents listed in Items 1, and 3 of ANNEX A annexed to this summons, 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_34-p2_b"></a>(b) The Plaintiff shall also state on affidavit, pursuant to Rule 63 of the Family Justice Rules 2014, in respect of:</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_34-p2_b-p3_i"></a>(i) The statement of any payouts he has received from the insurance policies set out at page 2 of Annex A annexed to this summons, from the time those policies were in force to date;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a>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_34-p2_c"></a>(c) Compliance affidavits are to be filed and served by 3 June 2024;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_34-p2_d"></a>(d) Costs submissions in respect of SUM 586 are to be filed and served by way of letter by 20 May 2024 by 5pm, limited to 3 pages each.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_35"></a>35 It remains for me to thank counsel for their assistance.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_1_1" id="Ftn_1">[note: 1]</a></sup>Statement of Particulars (Amendment No. 1) at paras 1 (e) and (f).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>Statement of Particulars (Amendment No. 1) at para 1 (d).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>Husband’s AOM at para 4.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_4_1" id="Ftn_4">[note: 4]</a></sup>Husband’s Reply Affidavit for SUM 586 at para 11; Huband’s Written Submissions for SUM 586 at para 8.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_5_1" id="Ftn_5">[note: 5]</a></sup>Wife’s Skeletal Submissions at p 8 – 10.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_6_1" id="Ftn_6">[note: 6]</a></sup>Plaintiff’s Written Submissions for Discovery at para 9.</p></div></content></root>	f6cf829655b2e4c22ce782146900808c43a84a3e

Links from other tables

11 rows from item_version in fc_judgments_changed