fc_judgments_version: 47

This data as json

_id _item _version _commit tags date court case-number title citation url counsel timestamp coram html _item_full_hash
47 39 1 1317 
[
    "Civil Procedure \u2013 Discovery",
    "Civil Procedure \u2013 Interrogatories"
]
 2024-06-07 Family Court Divorce No 4172 of 2021 (Summons No 1086 of 2024) WXY v WXZ [2024] SGFC 36 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%2F31610-SSP.xml 
[
    "Sharifah Nabilah Binte Syed Omar (IRB Law LLP) for the plaintiff",
    "Defendant in person and unrepresented."
]
 2024-06-18T16:00:00Z[GMT] Soh Kian Peng <root><head><title>WXY v WXZ</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> WXY <em>v</em> WXZ </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31610-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 36</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 4172 of 2021 (Summons No 1086 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">07 June 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"> Sharifah Nabilah Binte Syed Omar (IRB Law LLP) for the plaintiff; 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"> WXY — WXZ </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">7 June 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 first met at the turn of the millennium. They were married three years later, on 23 May 2003. They had two children. The Husband is a British expatriate. He used to run his own business providing consultancy services to clients who were seeking funding for their projects.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span> The Wife, on the other hand, works as a general manager.<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_2"></a>2       As to how the marriage broke down, details can be found in the Statement of Particulars (“SOP”). It paints a picture of how the relationship between the parties deteriorated to a point beyond all hope of rescue or salvage. In this case, it was the Wife who filed for divorce on 2 September 2021. Interim judgment was obtained some 2 years later on 14 December 2023.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3       The next step in the proceedings, on the road to the hearing of the ancillary matters, was for parties to exchange their requests for discovery and interrogatories, and to provide voluntary disclosures to the same. Dissatisfied with the extent of disclosure provided by the Wife, the Husband took out SUM 1086/2024 (“SUM 1086”), which was his application for discovery and interrogatories.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4       I heard the application on 30 May 2024. During the hearing, the Husband confirmed that he was only proceeding with the items listed in Schedules A and B, and not Schedule C, which were annexed to SUM 1086.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5       This is my decision in respect of SUM 1086.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Husband’s Application for Interrogatories </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6       It is trite law that interrogatories as well as discovery should only be ordered if they are relevant and necessary for the disposal of matters at the ancillary hearing: <em>UJN v UJO</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/21836-SSP.xml')">[2018] SGFC 47</a> (“<em>UJN</em>”) at [10] citing Rules 63 – 77 of the Family Justice Rules 2014; <em>VTQ v VTR</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/26432-SSP.xml')">[2021] SGFC 85</a> (“<em>VTQ</em>”) at [25] – [27].</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7       One other relevant principle is that the answer provided to an interrogatory only has to be sufficient – the truth of the answer provided does not concern me, and is a matter to be decided by the judge hearing the ancillary matters: <em>UJN</em> at [12]. In assessing the sufficiency of a response, it is important to not only look at the interrogatory posed, but also the response that had been given: <em>WWS v WWT</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31488-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 24</a> (“<em>WWS</em>”) at [30].</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8       It is with these principles in mind that I turn now to deal with the Husband’s request as set out in Schedule A annexed to SUM 1086.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9       Item 1 was a request for the Wife to state the annual income she had earned for each year of the marriage from 2003 to 2024. I note that the Wife has stated, in her reply affidavit to this summons, her estimated income from employment from 2003 – 2023.<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_10"></a>10     The Husband’s reason for pursuing this interrogatory was that he, having looked at the relevant documents, suspected the Wife of under-declaring her income. It is for this reason that he says this interrogatory is relevant and necessary to the hearing of the ancillary matters.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11     I disallow the Husband’s request in respect of Item 1. As I have mentioned (above at [7]), I am only concerned to the sufficiency of the answer, and not the truth of the answer given. Having read the Wife’s response, I am satisfied that the answer is indeed sufficient given that she had endeavoured to state her income over the course of the marriage. The Husband is, of course, entitled to disagree with the answer given, but this is a matter best ventilated before the judge hearing the ancillary matters: see <em>WWS</em> at [27].</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12     I come now to Item 2. This was a request for the Wife to state those insurance policies that she had taken out after the commencement of the marriage which had matured before the date of divorce. The Wife was also requested to state the total premium paid, the date of maturity and the value received by the Wife for those policies.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13     The Husband explained that there was reason to suspect that the Wife had other insurance policies. He pointed to paragraph 22 of the Wife’s Affidavit of Evidence in Chief (“AEIC”) where she had said that she had exercised all her insurance options. There was, however, no mention of such policies in the Wife’s Affidavit of Assets and Means (“AOM”). The Husband thus asserts that there were other insurance policies which were exercised during the course of their marriage, which the Wife had not disclosed in any of her affidavits.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14     In response, counsel for the Wife, Ms Sharifah, argued that the Husband’s request should not be allowed because the Wife had already provided details of all her insurance policies in the AOM. Insofar as the Husband had mentioned the insurance policies at paragraph 22 of the Wife’s AEIC, those insurance policies were dated before the marriage, and so were not relevant to the hearing of ancillary matters.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15     I will allow the request in respect of Item 2. It was clear to me that the existence of other such insurance policies would be relevant and necessary to determining the pool of matrimonial assets. I note that while the Wife has indeed disclosed a list of insurance policies in her AOM, those appear to be policies which are currently still in force. The Husband’s interrogatory, however, pertains to insurance policies which were taken out after the commencement of the marriage which have matured before their divorce. In that sense, the Husband has yet to receive an answer to the interrogatory that had been posed.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16     As for Item 3, the Husband confirmed, during the hearing, that he was not pursuing his request in respect of Item 3.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17     I come now to the last request on the list: Item 4. This was the request as had been framed:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">The Plaintiff claims she paid for half the groceries during our marriage.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Please explain the mechanism of how this was done.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">For example, did the Plaintiff pay for groceries one week and the Defendant the next week, etc</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18     The Husband explained that while the Wife had asserted that she paid for half of the groceries, she had not provided details as to how this had been done. According to the Husband, the Wife was overstating her expenses.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19     Ms Sharifah, in response, argued that this interrogatory was unnecessary because each party’s contributions could simply be proved by showing receipts. In any event, the Wife had also provided a breakdown at paragraph 10 of the affidavit in reply to SUM 1086.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20     I disallow the request in respect of Item 4. The mechanism by which the groceries had been paid for is, in my judgment, irrelevant to the disposal of the ancillary matters hearing. What is more crucial is whether there are receipts or bank statements to show who had actually paid for the groceries.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Husband’s Application for Discovery </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21     I come now to the Husband’s application for discovery. There were 7 items on the list. During the course of the hearing, the Husband confirmed that he would not be proceeding in respect of Items 1, 3, and 5. I will deal with the rest of the items in turn.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22     Item 2 was a request for the Wife to produce documents to support her answers given to Item 2 of the Husband’s request for interrogatories (above at [12]). The Husband has also asked that if the Wife asserts that there are no such insurance policies, evidence should be provided by way of an affidavit from the Wife’s insurance agents.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23     In response, Ms Sharifah argued that I did not have the power to order discovery in respect of Item 2 because there was no <em>prima facie</em> evidence that such insurance policies were in existence: see <em>VTQ</em> 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].</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24     In the circumstances, I will allow the Husband’s request in respect of Item 2, but only to the extent that the Wife is to provide documents of any insurance policies which were taken out after the marriage, and which had matured before the divorce. If the Wife did indeed disclose in her subsequent response to Item 2 of the Husband’s request for interrogatories, these documents would, in my judgment, be relevant and necessary (see <em>UJN</em> at [10]) for determining the value of the insurance policies that should be added back into the matrimonial pool.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25     For the avoidance of doubt, I am not ordering the Wife to provide an affidavit from her insurance agents if she asserts that she has no such insurance policies. These insurance agents are non-parties to the present divorce suit. To that end, Rule 71 of the Family Justice Rules 2014 provides a mechanism by which discovery and interrogatories may be sought against a non-party.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_26"></a>26     I will next deal with Items 4 and 7 together. Item 4 was a request for the Wife to produce documents evidencing the payment of half the grocery expenses during marriage. Item 7 was a similar request that the Wife provide documentary evidence to support the monthly expenses which she claims to have paid, particularly those relating to groceries, transport, mortgage and insurance.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_27"></a>27     During the hearing, the Husband clarified that he was not asking the Wife to produce receipts for the past 20 years. All he wanted was evidence for any six-month period between 2003 to 2011, and 2013 to 2019. The Husband further argued that without documentary evidence, there was no way in which he could show that the Wife had been inflating her expenses.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_28"></a>28     In response, Ms Sharifah argued that this request should be denied – the matter of proving which party had actually borne the cost of such expenses was a matter to be taken up at the ancillary matters hearing. In addition, Ms Sharifah also made the point that it was impractical to order that the Wife produce receipts dating back to 2019.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_29"></a>29     In response to Ms Sharifah’s characterisation of his application as a fishing expedition, the Husband replied that he was actually on a treasure hunt – he personally knew that the Wife had inflated her expenses but would be unable to prove it if he could not get hold of the documents.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_30"></a>30     In deciding whether to order discovery, the court must “strike a balance between the importance and relevance of the documents and the hardship to the party seeking discovery which is likely to be caused by non-production, against any prejudice likely to be caused to the other party by ordering production of documents or the provision of information”: <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> (“<em>Tan Bin Yong Christopher</em>”) at [13].</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_31"></a>31     Having considered the arguments, I will only allow the request in respect of Items 4 and 7 to the extent that the Wife is to disclose any receipts or statements she may have to support her expenditure for the six-month period from June 2019 to December 2019. In doing so, I take into account, on the one hand, the Husband’s argument that without these documents, he will be unable to prove, one way or the other, that the Wife had inflated her expenses. On the other hand, I am also mindful that the scope and extent of discovery must also be constrained by practical considerations – the Wife would face enormous difficulties if ordered to produce receipts going too far back in time.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_32"></a>32     I come now to Item 6. This was a request for the Wife to provide copies of bank and credit card statements in her name, as well as those accounts in joint names with her for the period starting February 2019 to September 2023.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_33"></a>33     The Husband explained that he had asked for statements starting from February 2019 because that was when the Wife allegedly had an affair – if there had been any serious thoughts as to divorce and dissipating assets, the paper trail would have begun from there. In response, Ms Sharifah argued that this request for documents was arbitrary and speculative. The Wife had already disclosed all relevant documents. In the bank statements that she had disclosed, there was no evidence that assets had been dissipated.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_34"></a>34     I will allow the request in Item 6, but only to the extent that the Wife is to disclose her bank and credit card statements from February 2021 to September 2023. It is, in my judgment, indeed useful for the court hearing the ancillary matters, as well as the Husband, to obtain a picture of the Wife’s financial circumstances in the period leading up to the filing of divorce proceedings, as well as directly after divorce proceedings had been filed. I echo the views of the court in <em>Tan Bin Yong Christopher</em> at [19]:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <b>When a marriage is breaking down, there will usually be a proportionate decrease in the knowledge and involvement of each party about the other’s finances and financial arrangements</b>. I also recognise that <b>particularly in situations where divorce proceedings are contemplated, there will be an incentive for both parties to manage their financial affairs in such a manner that would make them opaque to the other party</b>, and in extreme cases, to dissipate and/or salt away the matrimonial assets which are in their control. I note, of course, that no such allegation of dissipation of assets has been made in this case by the wife against the husband—as yet. But I am nonetheless of the view that it would be useful for the court, as well as the wife, to have a picture of the husband’s financial circumstances just before the marriage broke down, during the break down of the marriage, and after the filing of divorce proceedings….</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[emphasis added]</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Orders Made</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_35"></a>35     It is therefore ordered that:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_35-p2_a"></a>(a)     The Wife shall answer the interrogatories as set out in S/N 2 of Schedule A annexed to SUM 1086/2024 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-2"><a id="p1_35-p2_b"></a>(b)     The Wife shall state on affidavit, pursuant to Rule 63 of the Family Justice Rules 2014, in respect of each of the following documents:</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_35-p2_b-p3_i"></a>(i)       Insurance policies which the Wife had taken out after the commencement of the marriage, and which had matured before the date of divorce.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_35-p2_b-p3_ii"></a>(ii)       Any receipts or statements she may have to support her expenditure for the six-month period from June 2019 to December 2019</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_35-p2_b-p3_iii"></a>(iii)       Bank and credit card statements from February 2021 to September 2023</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a>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_35-p2_c"></a>(c)     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 her explanation (if any).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_36"></a>36     In addition to the above orders, it is also ordered that compliance affidavits are to be filed and served by 8 July 2024. Costs submissions in respect of SUM 1086 are to be filed and served by way of letter by 28 June.</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 AOM at p 2.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>Wife’s AOM at p 2.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>Wife’s Reply Affidavit to SUM 1086 at para 7.</p></div></content></root> ce59f3068e3d0711dfced8dba2d3a26f8fae8449

Links from other tables