fc_judgments_version: 44

This data as json

_id	_item	_version	_commit	tags	date	court	case-number	title	citation	url	counsel	timestamp	coram	html	_item_full_hash
44	36	1	1313	[ "Civil Procedure \u2013 Discovery", "Civil Procedure \u2013 Interrogatories" ]	2024-05-24	Family Court	Divorce No 5944 of 2022 (Summons No 975 and 1283 of 2024)	WXI v WXJ	[2024] SGFC 31	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%2F31581-SSP.xml	[ "Seetha Lkshmi P.S. Krrishnan (East Asia Law Corporation) for the plaintiff", "the defendant in person and unrepresented" ]	2024-06-05T16:00:00Z[GMT]	Soh Kian Peng	<root><head><title>WXI v WXJ</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> WXI <em>v</em> WXJ </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31581-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 31</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 5944 of 2022 (Summons No 975 and 1283 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">24 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"> Seetha Lkshmi P.S. Krrishnan (East Asia Law Corporation) 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"> WXI — WXJ </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 class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Civil 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">24 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 Parties were married in India in 2001. In the same year, they made their way to Singapore. During this time, they welcomed a son and a daughter into their family. Sometime in 2010, parties returned to India. Five years later, the Wife returned to Singapore. She did so to help the family maintain the matrimonial home – a HDB flat which they had bought early in their marriage. The son also returned to Singapore sometime in October 2022 to enlist for National Service.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 As to how the relationship between Husband and Wife broke down, details are provided in the Statement of Particulars. In essence, the Wife felt that the Husband had not supported her in their marriage. This caused her an undue amount of stress as she had to look after the family finances.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span> On the emotional front, the Wife felt that the Husband was indifferent to her emotional needs and that she was living in an “empty shell marriage”.<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_3"></a>3 Unable to tolerate this state of affairs any longer, the Wife filed for divorce on 22 December 2022. Interim judgment was obtained on 31 August 2023. Parties subsequently set course for a hearing of the ancillary matters. In preparation for that hearing, they exchanged their respective affidavits of assets and means. Evidently, both were dissatisfied with the extent of disclosure that had been provided.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 This thus spawned the two applications that came before me. SUM 975/2024 (“SUM 975”) was the Wife’s application for discovery. SUM 1283/2024 (“SUM 1283”) was the Husband’s application for discovery and interrogatories. I heard both applications on 17 May 2024.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 This is my decision in respect of SUM 975 and SUM 1283.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Wife’s Application for Discovery (“SUM 975”)</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 At the hearing, counsel for the Wife, Ms Seetha, confirmed that she would not be proceeding in respect of Items 1, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11 of Annex A to SUM 975. I will therefore deal with the rest of the items on that list. In doing so, I bear in mind the guiding principle that discovery should only be ordered if the document sought is relevant, and necessary for the disposal of the ancillary matters or for saving costs: <em>UJN v UJO</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/21836-SSP.xml')">[2018] SGFC 47</a> (“<em>UJN</em>”) at [10]; Rules 63 – 77 of the Family Justice Rules 2014.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 I will first deal with the Wife’s request for various statements of the Husband’s CPF account. These were the relevant items:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_7-p2_a"></a>(a) Item 2: the Husband’s CPF transactions and contribution statements for 2020 – 2023.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_7-p2_b"></a>(b) Item 3: the Husband’s current CPF investment statement.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_7-p2_c"></a>(c) Item 5: the Husband’s CPF account statement as of November 2023.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 Ms Seetha says that these statements are relevant and necessary towards determining the matrimonial pool of assets. The CPF statements would also enable the Wife to ascertain the Husband’s income. The Husband’s response was that he had produced these statements in his response to the Wife’s request for discovery.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_3" id="Ftn_3_1"><sup>[note: 3]</sup></a></span> The Husband also stated that he was, in any case, ready to provide these documents should the court order it.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 I will allow the request in respect of Items 2, 3 and 5. I find that the CPF statements are indeed relevant and necessary for the hearing of ancillary matters. It would shed light on the Husband’s income, and also be useful for ascertaining the matrimonial pool of assets.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 Item 4 was a request for the Husband to produce statements for his bank accounts with DBS and City Union Bank for the period December 2022 to November 2023. Ms Seetha argued that these documents were relevant and necessary for the ancillary hearing as they would shed light on the Husband’s assets. In response, the Husband stated that he was willing to provide the documents to the court, but he did not want the Wife to have sight of it. He explained that there were transactions in those documents that could affect his reputation. He did not want the children to be affected.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 I will allow the Wife’s request in respect of Item 4. The documents sought were clearly relevant and necessary for the disposal of ancillary matters. These documents would shed light on the financial status of the Husband in the period following the filing of the divorce. That the Husband did not want the Wife having sight of the bank statements is not a basis for refusing disclosure. I would, however, add that while I have ordered that the Husband disclose these documents, they are only to be used for the purposes of the ancillary matters hearing.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 Item 9 was a request for the Husband to produce documents on the alleged claims of two creditors, one Mr J and Swift Credit. Ms Seetha explained that they were requesting for these documents as the copies which the Husband had provided were illegible. These documents, according to Ms Seetha, were relevant for the hearing of ancillary matters in that they would establish the Husband’s direct and indirect contributions and show whether there had been any dissipation of matrimonial assets.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 The Husband’s response was that because the documents he had provided was in the Wife’s handwriting, she should be able to decipher what had been written.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 I disallow this request. As I had pointed out to Ms Seetha during the hearing – if the Husband sought to rely on these documents to establish his financial contributions, he bore the onus of proving it and producing the necessary documentary evidence to that effect. In any event, I was not satisfied as to the relevancy of these documents – it would only show the extent of the obligations as between the Husband and his creditors, but it would not show how the proceeds from these loans had been used.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 Item 12 related to mortgage loan statements from HDFC Bank India (“HDFC”) for the matrimonial property in India from 2017 – 2023. Ms Seetha explained that these documents were necessary to confirm that the Husband had indeed contributed to the matrimonial property in India. In response, the Husband argued that because the Wife was also a party to the mortgage that had been taken out, she too was in a position to ask for these documents. The Husband further stated that the bank would only provide a yearly statement, and that he had already provided this.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 I will disallow the request in respect of Item 12. Similarly, if it is the Husband’s case that he had contributed to the acquisition of the matrimonial property in India by way of repaying the mortgage, then it was for him to put forward those documents in evidence.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Husband’s Application for Discovery and Interrogatories (“SUM 1283”)</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 I turn now to the Husband’s request for discovery and interrogatories. During the hearing, the Husband confirmed that he would not be proceeding in respect of the following:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_17-p2_a"></a>(a) Discovery: Items 1, 3, 4, 7, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, and 22.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_17-p2_b"></a>(b) Interrogatories: Items 1, and 5.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id=""></a>I will deal with the rest of the items that had been proceeded with, beginning with the Husband’s request for interrogatories.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Interrogatories</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 I note, at the outset, that the Husband had failed to, in SUM 1283, include the relevant prayers. He had only annexed the list of interrogatories that he sought to SUM 1283. Ms Seetha, however, raised no objections on this ground. She dealt with the Husband’s application on its substance. She had also put in written submissions to respond to the Husband’s request for interrogatories.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19 It must be noted that the Husband is self-represented. While Rule 69(6) of the Family Justice Rules 2014 stipulates that an application for interrogatories for interrogatories to be answered must be made by way of summons in the relevant Form, I do not think the Husband should, in this case, be penalised for his non-compliance.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20 I will therefore deal with his application for interrogatories as had been argued before me.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21 In deciding whether interrogatories should be ordered, I must look at the sufficiency of the Wife’s answers. In other words, I must be satisfied that she has answered the interrogatories that the Husband had posed to her. The truth of the answers is not ascertained at this stage of proceedings. If the Husband says that the Wife’s answers are not true, that is for him to raise at the ancillary hearing. I also bear in mind the principle that the interrogatory posed must be relevant and necessary for the disposal of ancillary matters (see <em>UJN</em> at [10] and [12]).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22 I start with Item 2. The Husband had asked the Wife to provide a breakdown of her monthly loan repayments. This was the Wife’s response:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">“This is just a rough figure. The Plaintiff has to pay to five different credit facilities. The amount varies with each bank every month”.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23 This is not a sufficient answer. The question specifically asks for a breakdown of the Wife’s monthly loan repayments. The Wife has side-stepped the question. She has not given a breakdown of her monthly loan repayments. She has only disclosed her obligation to pay five different credit facilities every month without setting out the details of the amounts she is paying. I will therefore allow the request in respect of Item 2.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24 The interrogatory posed in Item 3 asked the Wife to state her monthly income from the time parties were married in 2001 to date.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25 I disallow the request in respect of this item. The Wife has, in her response, stated her monthly salary from the time parties were married to date.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_4" id="Ftn_4_1"><sup>[note: 4]</sup></a></span> Her answer to the interrogatory posed is sufficient. It appeared to me that the Husband was disputing the sums that the Wife had declared – his point was that the Wife had, in her response, under-declared her monthly salary. However, as I have already mentioned, if there is any dispute as to the truth of the answer to an interrogatory, that is to be raised at the hearing of ancillary matters.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_26"></a>26 Item 4 required the Wife to confirm that she had the Husband’s ATM card for his POSB account in her possession, and that she had full access to the said account from the period between June 2017 to August 2019.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_27"></a>27 The Husband explained that he had deposited money into his POSB account whilst he was working in India. However, the money had, according to his bank statements, been withdrawn from an ATM near to the matrimonial home. In short – he suspected the Wife of taking withdrawing the money which he had deposited into this account.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_28"></a>28 I will allow the request in respect of Item 4. I am satisfied that it is relevant and necessary for the disposal of ancillary matters given the Husband’s allegation that the Wife had taken the money, which were the fruits of his labour. Further, the Wife’s response is also insufficient. She had given a bare denial that she does not have possession of the Husband’s ATM card. But there is another part to the interrogatory – that is whether she had full access to the said account from June 2017 to August 2019. The Wife has not given an answer to this.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Discovery</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_29"></a>29 I turn now to the Husband’s request for discovery.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_30"></a>30 Item 2 was for documents evidencing cash payments made by the Wife towards the HDB flat from 1 August 2004 – 2010. The Husband argued that proof of the bank statements was necessary to confirm that the Wife had indeed made the cash payments which she claimed she had made.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_31"></a>31 In response, Ms Seetha said that the Wife had already disclosed the documents which the Husband sought in her 1<sup>st</sup> AOM.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_32"></a>32 I disallow the request. In considering an application for discovery, I must also consider the prejudice that is likely to be caused to the other party if an order to produce documents is made: <em>VTQ v VTR</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/26432-SSP.xml')">[2021] SGFC 85</a> (“<em>VTQ</em>”) at [26(a)]. The documents sought went back to transactions that had taken place from 2004 to 2010. The Wife would face considerable difficulties in attempting to obtain these documents. In any event, the point of discovery is to ensure that the judge has all the relevant material for the disposal of the case. It is not meant to allow parties disprove assertions made by the other party by demanding documentary evidence.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_33"></a>33 I turn now to Item 5. The Wife had claimed that she had borrowed money from debtors to pay for the matrimonial home in India as well as legal fees for the divorce. According to the Wife, her sister had helped her repay this sum. She thus took out a loan from Standard Chartered Bank to repay her sister.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_5" id="Ftn_5_1"><sup>[note: 5]</sup></a></span> Item 5 was a request for documents supporting the Wife’s claim concerning this loan. The Husband essentially wanted documents proving that the Wife had taken out a loan with Standard Chartered, and that that sum of money had indeed been used to repay her sister. He said that it was necessary for the Wife to provide proof that the money had indeed been transferred to her sister’s account.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_34"></a>34 Again, Ms Seetha said that the documents the Husband was asking for had already been disclosed.<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_35"></a>35 Having had sight of the documents which Ms Seetha had referred me to, I note that the manner in which they had been presented was less than ideal. There were some 20 pages worth of what appeared to be receipts from HDFC bank disclosed in the Wife’s 1<sup>st</sup> AOM. Some of these receipts, the contents of which were handwritten, were barely legible. It did not help that the scanned images were grainy, and in some cases, blurred. As to what these receipts were, and what they were meant to show – the brief explanation provided in the Wife’s NIR was inadequate.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_7" id="Ftn_7_1"><sup>[note: 7]</sup></a></span> It did not help that there was no explanation accompanying these receipts to provide some context, nor was there any pinpoint reference to these exhibits in the Wife’s 1<sup>st</sup> AOM.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_36"></a>36 As for the Husband’s request in respect of Item 5, that is disallowed. It is for the Wife to adduce evidence to support her assertion that she had borrowed money from her sister and that those sums were applied to the matrimonial home in India.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_37"></a>37 I come now to Item 6. These were documents evidencing that the sum of $9303.15 incurred on the HSBC credit card had been used for family expenses. The Husband explained that the statements were necessary because the Wife had stated, in her 1<sup>st</sup> AOM, that she had spent the sum of $9303.15 on her credit card.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_38"></a>38 Ms Seetha said that enquiries had been made with the bank and the Wife was informed that the statements which the Husband sought could not be obtained.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_39"></a>39 I will allow the request in respect of Item 6. Although the request could have been better framed, I am satisfied that these documents are indeed relevant to the disposal of ancillary matters in that they would shed light on the family’s expenditure as well as the Wife’s financial contributions. The Wife should, if she is indeed unable to obtain these statements from HSBC, exhibit documents (<em>ie</em>, a letter from the bank), evidencing the same.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_40"></a>40 Next on the list was Item 8. The Wife had taken out a loan with Maybank for the sum of $5000 to redeem her mother’s jewellery that had been pawned to support family expenses. Item 8 was the Husband’s request for documents to prove that such a loan had been taken out with Maybank and that the jewellery had indeed been redeemed.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_41"></a>41 The Husband said disclosure was necessary because the Wife alleged that she had transferred money to her sister’s account, but there was no proof of such transfers. Ms Seetha, on the other hand, urged me not to allow the Husband’s request as the Wife had already disclosed the relevant documents in her reply affidavit to this summons.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_42"></a>42 I disallow the request in respect of Item 8. Whether the Wife could prove that she had taken a loan from her sister was a matter for submissions at the ancillary hearing. It was not a basis on which discovery could be pursued.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_43"></a>43 That said, I do note that the Wife has disclosed some documents. The first, was a POSB bank statement. The second, was a deposit slip.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_8" id="Ftn_8_1"><sup>[note: 8]</sup></a></span> While there is an explanation as to what the POSB statement was supposed to reflect, no such explanation was provided for the deposit slip. Apart from these documents, reference was also made to the 20 pages worth of receipts that I have described above (at [32]). As I have already mentioned (above at [32]), if the Wife intends to rely on these documents, they must be neatly organised, and where necessary, an explanation to provide context should be included.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_44"></a>44 Items 9 and 10 related to the Husband’s request for documentary evidence to support the Wife’s claim that she had received the sum of $25,000 and $5000 from pawning her wedding jewellery, and that these sums had been used for the downpayment of the HDB flat.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_45"></a>45 The Husband’s contention is that based on the gold prices then, it was simply inconceivable that the Wife had been able to receive those sums of cash. He therefore needed the documents to establish that the Wife had indeed obtained this sum of money which allegedly went towards the downpayment of the HDB flat.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_46"></a>46 I disallow the request for Items 9 and 10. The jewellery had been pawned more than 20 years ago. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to track down, and obtain such documents given the time that had passed. The extent of discovery that can be ordered is necessarily circumscribed by the practicality of obtaining the documents.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_47"></a>47 Item 11 was the Husband’s request for documentary evidence that the Wife had repaid the sum of $19,806.85 towards renovation of the HDB flat. The Husband explained that these documents were necessary to prove that the Wife had indeed paid off this sum.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_48"></a>48 I disallow the request in respect of Item 11. The Wife had already disclosed the relevant documents. This document which the Wife produced was a letter from Tan Kok Quan partnership, on behalf of the creditor bank, which was addressed to the Wife. Its contents are clear. It shows how the renovation loan had been paid off.<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_49"></a>49 Item 12 was a request for documentary evidence that the Wife had taken a loan of $20,000 from her sister. The Husband explained that there was no proof of this loan.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_50"></a>50 I disallow the request in respect of Item 12. The Wife had stated, in her 1<sup>st</sup> AOM, that she borrowed money from her sister to pay off the India housing loan of $20,000.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_10" id="Ftn_10_1"><sup>[note: 10]</sup></a></span> Again, it is for her to provide the necessary evidence in support of her assertion.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_51"></a>51 I will deal with the next two items together. Item 16 was a request for documents to support the Wife’s claim that she had given the Husband $7000 towards the discharge of his bankruptcy. Item 17 was a request for documents to support the Wife’s claim that the alleged sum of $7000 which she had given to the Husband was used by him to pay off the mortgage on the Indian matrimonial home.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_52"></a>52 These two items are related because the Wife had stated, in her 1<sup>st</sup> AOM, that she had borrowed $7000 from the Husband’s friend. She had tried to use this amount in an attempt to discharge the Husband from bankruptcy. The Public Trustee refused to accept this payment, and refunded the money. The Wife subsequently channelled this sum to the Husband who used it for the Indian matrimonial home.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_53"></a>53 The Husband has asked for these documents because he says he cannot accept the Wife’s version of events – he wants her to prove her assertions by producing documentary evidence.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_54"></a>54 While it is true that he or she who asserts must prove their case, that is a matter to be properly pursued at the ancillary hearing. The Husband had been reminded of this at a case conference prior to this hearing.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_55"></a>55 I therefore disallow the request in respect of Items 16 and 17.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_56"></a>56 The next few items can also be dealt with together:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_56-p2_a"></a>(a) Item 19 was a request for documents to show that the Wife had paid around $20,000 towards the family’s expenses. The Wife had stated, in her 1<sup>st</sup> AOM, that she had spent this money on the family’s trip to Singapore in 2015.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_56-p2_b"></a>(b) Item 21 was a request for documents showing that the Wife had paid the maid levy since 2007.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_56-p2_c"></a>(c) Item 23 was a request for documents evidencing the Wife’s sale of her land in India and the sums received from this sale, as well as documents showing that these sale proceeds had indeed been used to redeem the Wife’s bridal jewellery.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_57"></a>57 The common thread binding these three items is that whether the Wife had put forth evidence in support of her claims is, once again, a matter for submissions at the ancillary hearing. The discovery process is not a forum for one to challenge assertions or claims made by the other side by demanding that they provide documentary evidence.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_58"></a>58 I therefore disallow the request in respect of Item 19, 21, and 23.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_59"></a>59 I come now to the final item on the list: Item 24. This was a request for bank account statements for the POSB account ending 8410 for the period June 2017 to August 2019. It mirrored the Husband’s request for interrogatories (see [23] – [25] above).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_60"></a>60 I will allow the request. I am satisfied as to the relevancy and necessity of the document sought. The nub of the Husband’s contention was that the Wife had deposited the money withdrawn from his POSB account into her own account (ending 8410). These bank statements were therefore relevant and necessary to allow the Husband to trace the sums that had been withdrawn from his account.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Orders Made</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_61"></a>61 I make the following orders in respect of SUM 975:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_61-p2_a"></a>(a) The Husband shall state on affidavit, pursuant to Rule 63 of the Family Justice Rules 2014, in respect of each of the following documents listed in S/N 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Schedule 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_61-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 custody, power or possession, he is to state the reasons why, together with supporting documentation for his explanation (if any).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_62"></a>62 As for SUM 1283, I make the following orders:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_62-p2_a"></a>(a) The Wife shall state on affidavit, pursuant to Rule 63 of the Family Justice Rules 2014, in respect of each of the following documents listed in S/N 6 and 24 of the Request for Discovery annexed to this summons, whether the same is in her possession, custody or power, and if not then in her possession, custody or power, when she parted with it and what has become of it;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_62-p2_b"></a>(b) The Wife shall exhibit, in the affidavit, a copy of each of the documents that are in her possession, custody or power. If any of the documents are not in her custody, power or possession, she 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) The Wife shall answer the interrogatories as set out in Item 2, and 4 of the Request for Interrogatories annexed to this summons on affidavit, to the best of her knowledge, information and belief, pursuant to Rule 69 of the Family Justice Rules 2014.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_63"></a>63 In addition to the above orders, I also order that compliance affidavits are to be filed by 21 June 2024.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_64"></a>64 As for costs, the Husband argued that he should be entitled to costs in respect of SUM 975 as well as SUM 1283. Ms Seetha on the other hand, said that she would leave the matter of costs to the court but highlighted the Husband’s conduct, in particular, the manner in which he had framed his requests.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_65"></a>65 These are the applicable principles relating to costs. They can be found in Rules 852 and 854 of the Family Justice Rules 2014. Costs are in the discretion of the court. If the court sees fit to order costs, the starting point is that costs follow the event. The court, however, can depart from this starting point, taking into account, amongst other things, the conduct of parties.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_66"></a>66 Apart from Rules 852 and 854, Rule 870 of the FJR 2014 is also relevant because the Husband is a self-represented person. Rule 870 provides that the court has the discretion to allow costs for a self-represented person that would be reasonable compensation for the time expended by him, together with all the expenses reasonably incurred: see <em>VTQ</em> at [81].</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_67"></a>67 In respect of SUM 975, the Wife has substantially succeeded in her application. I also took into account the fact that the matter was not particularly complex. Costs are therefore fixed at $400 (all-in), to be paid by the Husband to the Wife.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_68"></a>68 As for SUM 1283, the Husband did not substantially succeed in his application. The matter was not particularly complex though I note that the Husband had sought both disclosure in respect of a number of documents as well as interrogatories. In the circumstances, costs are fixed at $450 (all-in) to be paid by the Husband to the Wife.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Conclusion</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_69"></a>69 I conclude with one observation. The whole point of the discovery process is to ensure that all the necessary evidence relevant to the disposal of ancillary matters is before the judge hearing the matter: <em>VTQ</em> at [79]. The corollary of this is that these documents should be neatly organised and presented. If there are references to the documents in the affidavits or in submissions, pinpoint references should, as far as possible, be provided. If scanned copies of documents are provided, the onus is on parties to ensure that the images are clear, and that any handwriting is legible (see Practice Directions 110 and 112 of the Family Justice Courts Practice Directions). If the documents are in a foreign language, a certified translation must be provided. Parties do themselves no favours if they do not, at least, make an attempt to properly organise and present the documents on which they are seeking to rely.</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 para 1(c).</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(h).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>Wife’s Affidavit in support of SUM 975 at p 30.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_4_1" id="Ftn_4">[note: 4]</a></sup>Wife’s affidavit in reply to SUM 1283 at pp 81 – 82.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_5_1" id="Ftn_5">[note: 5]</a></sup>Wife’s 1<sup>st</sup> AOM at para 14(a).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_6_1" id="Ftn_6">[note: 6]</a></sup>Wife’s Reply affidavit to SUM 1283 at pp 28 – 29; Wife’s 1<sup>st</sup> AOM at pp 185 – 205.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_7_1" id="Ftn_7">[note: 7]</a></sup>Wife’s Reply affidavit to SUM 1283 at p 29.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_8_1" id="Ftn_8">[note: 8]</a></sup>Wife’s Reply Affidavit to SUM 1283 at Annex D.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_9_1" id="Ftn_9">[note: 9]</a></sup>Wife’s 1<sup>st</sup> AOM at p 72.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_10_1" id="Ftn_10">[note: 10]</a></sup>Wife’s 1<sup>st</sup> AOM at para 17(i)(1).</p></div></content></root>	e571355d0589ca1ba28ccd353caf57d47570c039

Links from other tables

11 rows from item_version in fc_judgments_changed