fc_judgments_version: 48

This data as json

_id _item _version _commit tags date court case-number title citation url counsel timestamp coram html _item_full_hash
48 40 1 1318 
[
    "Family Law \u2013 Costs"
]
 2024-06-13 Family Court Divorce No 4479 of 2022 (Summons No 959 and 1317 of 2024) WXE v WXF [2024] SGFC 40 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%2F31618-SSP.xml 
[
    "Audrey Liaw Shu Juan, Joseph Tan Liqi, Jerome-Jon Tan Renyi, Yee May Kuen Peggy Sarah (PY Legal LLC) for the plaintiff",
    "Robert Leslie Gregory (L G Robert) for the defendant"
]
 2024-06-19T16:00:00Z[GMT] Soh Kian Peng <root><head><title>WXE v WXF</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> WXE <em>v</em> WXF </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31618-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 40</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 4479 of 2022 (Summons No 959 and 1317 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 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"> Audrey Liaw Shu Juan, Joseph Tan Liqi, Jerome-Jon Tan Renyi, Yee May Kuen Peggy Sarah (PY Legal LLC) for the plaintiff; Robert Leslie Gregory (L G Robert) 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"> WXE — WXF </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">13 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-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1       This is my decision in respect of costs for SUM 959 and 1317 of 2024. I had earlier issued my written grounds in respect of both summons: <em>WXE v WXF</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31617-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 29</a> (“<em>WXE</em>”).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2       SUM 1317 was the Husband’s application for discovery and interrogatories.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3       Counsel for the Husband submits that for SUM 1317, the Wife should bear costs, fixed at $2027.20 (all-in). They justify this on the basis that their client, the Husband, has substantially succeeded in SUM 1317. Counsel for the Wife, on the other hand, argued that the Husband failed in most of the items that were proceeded on, and should therefore only be entitled to nominal costs.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4       As for SUM 959, that was the Wife’s application for discovery and interrogatories.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5       Counsel for the Wife argues that for SUM 959 the Husband should bear costs in respect of SUM 959 as she had succeeded in most of her requests. Counsel for the Husband took the opposing view and argued that no order as to costs should be made in respect of SUM 959. That is because the Wife did not succeed in SUM 959 in its entirety.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6       In addition, counsel for the Husband also submitted, citing the case of <em>JBB v JBA</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/18024-SSP.xml')">[2015] 5 SLR 153</a> (“<em>JBB</em>”), that if I did not award costs for SUM 1317, then similarly, no order as to costs should be made for SUM 959 in order to avoid increasing hostility between the parties.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7       Insofar as the principles governing costs are concerned, they can be found in Rules 852 and 854 of the Family Justice Rules 2014. In essence, if the court does award costs, the starting point is that costs shall follow the event. The court can, however, depart from this starting point, taking into account factors such as the conduct of parties.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8       One reason for departing from this starting point, and ordering that each party is to bear their own costs, or making no order as to costs, is to “minimise acrimony and discontent between parties” (see also <em>VJL v VGM</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/24701-SSP.xml')">[2020] SGFC 59</a> at [135]; <em>TIJ v TIK</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/18469-SSP.xml')">[2015] SGFC 147</a> at [23]). That was the point which had been made in <em>JBB</em>. There is much sense to taking such an approach. From a practical perspective, an order to pay costs may well create the potential for further discontent between parties. For instance, one party may well be tempted to, in an attempt to spite the other party, refuse to pay costs. This would spawn further applications to enforce the costs order (see <em>VWM v VWN</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/26685-SSP.xml')">[2021] SGFC 107</a> at [134] – [135]).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9       It bears noting that what had been said in <em>JBB</em> is not a hard and fast rule – it does not mean that parties should always have to bear their own costs in matrimonial proceedings (see <em>WQR v WQS</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/30388-SSP.xml')">[2023] SGHCF 41</a> at [88]). Ultimately, costs are in the court’s discretion, and in certain cases, for example, where a party has acted unreasonably in the proceedings, that party may very well be ordered to bear the other party’s costs: see <em>UHG v UHH</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/21040-SSP.xml')">[2017] SGFC 116</a> at [63] – [68]; <em>UTN v UTO and another</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/23424-SSP.xml')">[2019] SGHCF 18</a> at [107]; <em>TNX v TNY</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/18869-SSP.xml')">[2016] SGFC 50</a> at [51] – [60]. This may also be the case where a party has taken an adversarial stance in proceedings – an award of costs would reflect that doing so is simply unacceptable 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/31457-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGHCF 20</a> at [14].</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10     In the present case, it was clear to me, from the conduct of the parties, that there was a great deal of acrimony and bitterness between them. I give two examples that point me to this conclusion. First, as I had noted in my judgment (<em>WXE</em> at [47]), parties appeared to have been engaging in tit-for-tat because at least one of the requests for discovery appeared to have been motivated by the fact that the other party had also asked that the same documents be disclosed. Second, the language used in some of the affidavits was also telling as to the strained relations between the parties.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11     There shall therefore be no order as to costs for SUM 959 and SUM 1317.</p> </div></content></root> 3febbd4baf890117dd7fc19027d72656d1790fc4

Links from other tables