fc_judgments_version: 53

This data as json

_id	_item	_version	_commit	tags	date	court	case-number	title	citation	url	counsel	timestamp	coram	html	_item_full_hash
53	45	1	1769	[ "Family Law \u2013 Procedure \u2013 Discovery" ]	2024-07-01	Family Court	Divorce No 2546 of 2023 (Summons No 1346 of 2024)	WYX v WYY	[2024] SGFC 45	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%2F31691-SSP.xml	[ "Sabrina Wong Xue Yun (SC Wong Law Chambers) for the plaintiff", "Thirumurthy Ayernaar Pambayan (Murthy & Co) for the defendant" ]	2024-07-03T16:00:00Z[GMT]	Soh Kian Peng	<root><head><title>WYX v WYY</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> WYX <em>v</em> WYY </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31691-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 45</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 2546 of 2023 (Summons No 1346 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">01 July 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"> Sabrina Wong Xue Yun (SC Wong Law Chambers) for the plaintiff; Thirumurthy Ayernaar Pambayan (Murthy & Co) 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"> WYX — WYY </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">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">1 July 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 SUM 1346 of 2024 (“SUM 1346”) was the Wife’s application for discovery. I heard oral arguments on 24 June 2024. At that hearing, counsel for the Wife, Mr Thirumurthy, confirmed that his client was not seeking discovery in respect of all the items set out in the list annexed to SUM 1346. Instead, she was seeking discovery in respect of the following documents as had been set out at paragraphs 7 and 8 of her supporting affidavit for SUM 1346:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_1-p2_a"></a>(a) Passport details and copies of the Husband’s travel history to other countries for the years 2021, 2022 and up to November 2023.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_1-p2_b"></a>(b) Payslips for the years 2020, 2021, 2022 up to November 2023.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 This was procedurally irregular. None of these documents which the Wife was seeking had been prayed for in SUM 1346. Mr Thirumurthy explained that there was no prejudice to the Husband because he had, in a letter dated 6 May 2024, informed the Husband’s lawyer, Ms Sabrina Wong (“Ms Wong”) that he would be pursuing discovery in respect of these two items. Although Ms Wong confirmed that she was aware of this request, she raised the objection that SUM 1346 was indeed procedurally irregular as the two items which the Wife sought had not been prayed for.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 Given that Ms Wong was prepared and able to deal with the Wife’s request, I proceeded to deal with the Wife’s request on the merits, notwithstanding this procedural irregularity.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 Insofar as discovery is concerned, Rule 63(4) of the Family Justice Rules 2014 state:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <b>Discovery in respect of ancillary relief</b> </p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">63.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (7) and (9) and rule 73, the Court may, at any time, on the application of any party to an action or matter (called in this rule the applicant), make an order requiring any other party (called in this rule the respondent) to make an affidavit stating whether any document specified or described in the application, or any class of documents so specified or described —</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(a) is or has at any time been in the respondent’s possession, custody or power; and</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(b) if not then in his possession, custody or power, when he parted with it and what has become of it.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(2) Upon making an order under paragraph (1), if a document or class of documents is stated by the respondent in his affidavit to be in his possession, custody or power, the Court may order the party to exhibit a copy or copies of the document or class of documents in the affidavit.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(3) An application for an order under this rule must be in the relevant Form, and be supported by an affidavit stating the belief of the deponent —</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(a) that the party from whom discovery is sought under this rule has, or at some time had, in his possession, custody or power, the document or class of documents specified or described in the application; and</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(b) that the document falls within one of the following descriptions:</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-3">(i) a document on which the party relies or will rely;</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-3">(ii) a document which could —</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-4">(A) adversely affect his own case;</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-4">(B) adversely affect another party’s case; or</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-4">(C) support another party’s case;</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-3">(iii) a document which may lead the party seeking discovery of it to a train of inquiry resulting in his obtaining information which may —</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-4">(A) adversely affect his own case;</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-4">(B) adversely affect another party’s case; or</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-4">(C) support another party’s case.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(<b>4</b>) <b>Before an application under paragraph (1) may be filed, the applicant must serve a written request on the respondent —</b> </p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(<b>a</b>) <b>seeking discovery of the said document or class of documents, in the relevant Form; and</b> </p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(<b>b</b>) <b>setting out in respect of each of such document or class of documents, the reasons for requesting discovery.</b> </p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(5) The respondent who is served with the written request for discovery must serve a notice, in the relevant Form, within 14 days after having been served with the written request, stating —</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(a) which document or class of documents he is willing to provide discovery of, and in what mode he is willing to provide such discovery; and</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(b) which document or class of documents he is not willing or not able to provide discovery of.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(6) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the document or class of documents which the respondent is willing to provide discovery of under paragraph (5)(a) must be provided or made available, as the case may be, within 28 days after the service of the written request for discovery.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(<b>7</b>) <b>No application under paragraph (1) may be made unless —</b> </p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(<b>a</b>) <b>the time specified in paragraph (5) to serve the notice has elapsed, and the respondent has not served such notice;</b> </p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(<b>b</b>) <b>the time specified in paragraph (6) to provide or make available the document or class of documents that the respondent has notified he is willing to provide discovery of has elapsed, and he has not provided or made available such document or class of documents; or</b> </p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(<b>c</b>) <b>the respondent has notified that he is not willing or not able to provide discovery of the document or class of documents specified in the written request.</b> </p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(8) In deciding whether to grant an order under paragraph (1), the Court must take into account —</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(a) the extent of discovery which the respondent has stated that he is willing to provide under paragraph (5)(a); and</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(b) any offer made by the respondent to give particulars or make admissions relating to any matter in question.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(9) An order under paragraph (1) must not be made in respect of any party before the granting of the interim judgment, or before the Affidavit of Assets and Means has been filed by the plaintiff and the defendant, unless, in the opinion of the Court —</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(a) the order is necessary to prevent the disposal of a party’s assets;</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(b) the order is made in conjunction with an order preventing the disposal of a party’s assets; or</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(c) there is any other exceptional circumstance necessitating the making of the order.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[emphasis added]</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 It is also hornbook law that the twin principles of relevance and necessity govern when discovery should be ordered: <em>WWS v WWT</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31488-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 24</a> at [21] – [25] citing <em>UJN v UJO</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/21836-SSP.xml')">[2018] SGFC 47</a> at [9]; <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>VTQ v VTR</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/26432-SSP.xml')">[2021] SGFC 85</a>. These principles are not in dispute in the present case. Parties, however, dispute that I should order discovery in respect of the two categories of documents which the Wife has sought.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 In relation to the travel documents (above at [1(a)]), Mr Thirumurthy explained that these issues were directly relevant to the issue of child maintenance. This was because the Husband had, apparently, only offered to pay $400 per month in child maintenance. Mr Thirumurthy explained that if the Husband could travel, he could well afford to pay a higher amount of maintenance for the child.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 In response, Ms Wong argued that the travel documents were irrelevant to the issue of child maintenance. She argued that, as a matter of law, the quantum of child maintenance was to be determined by what the needs of the child were. The frequency of the Husband’s travels should have no bearing on the quantum of maintenance for the child. In any event, this was, according to Ms Wong, a fishing expedition because the Wife had only asked for the travel documents at the first round of voluntary disclosures and not the second.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 While Ms Wong is right in that child maintenance is ordered to provide for the reasonable needs of the child, the quantum of child maintenance is something to be assessed having regard to all the relevant circumstances of the case. Parties are expected to show how their projected expenditure for the child’s expenses is reasonable having regard to all relevant circumstances including the child’s standard of living <b>and the parents’ financial means and resources</b>: <em>WBU v WBT</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/29255-SSP.xml')">[2023] SGHCF 3</a> (“<em>WBU</em>”) at [9].</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 That being said, I did not see how the records of the Husband’s travels were relevant to showing his financial means and resources. At best, these records would show the number of countries which the Husband had been to, and the duration of each trip. It would not show how much the Husband had actually spent on each trip. For instance, as I pointed out to Mr Thirumurthy during the hearing, the travel records would not show whether the Husband had flown in first class, or by budget airline.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 In any event, it appeared to me that the Wife may have had <em>other</em> reasons for seeking disclosure of the Husband’s travel documents. In her counterclaim re-dated 19 October 2023, she had, at para 2(j), said that the Husband would disappear from the matrimonial home on Sundays and Public Holidays. She had eventually discovered that on these occasions, the Husband had travelled to Malaysia and other countries on his own. The Wife suspected that the Husband had “sexual associations” with females whenever he went on these trips, although the Husband had, when confronted, denied it. The Wife’s request for the Husband’s travel documents, when read in light of what she had set out in her counterclaim, suggests that she may well have had a collateral purpose, which were unrelated to the hearing of the ancillary matters, for seeking those documents.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 Therefore, for the reasons which I have set out above, I disallow the Wife’s request as set out above at [1(a)].</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 I turn now to deal with the Wife’s request for the Husband’s payslips (above at [1(b)]). Again, as Mr Thirumurthy had explained, the Wife wanted the payslips to show that the Husband was actually able to afford more in terms of child maintenance. As the Wife had set out at paragraph 8 of her affidavit in support, she wanted the payslips to show that the Husband was being reimbursed for internet and telephone bills. These payslips were also, as Mr Thirumurthy had explained, relevant to showing the Husband’s income.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 In response, Ms Wong once again argued that the Wife was on a fishing expedition. The Husband’s IRAS statements had already been disclosed. The Wife was thus well aware of the Husband’s salary. Even if the payslips were required to show the amount of reimbursements, the extent of disclosure sought had to be circumscribed by the amount in dispute. Disclosure of the payslips should therefore not be ordered given that the reimbursements came in at about $230 each month. Ms Wong had also pointed out that the Wife had not asked for the Husband’s payslips in her voluntary request for disclosure.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 Having considered the arguments, I disallow the Wife’s request for the Husband’s payslips. Rule 63(4) and 63(7) make it clear that before a summons for discovery can be taken out, the documents which are sought must first be asked for during the voluntary disclosure process. In the present case, it is clear that the Wife had not asked for the Husband’s payslips in both her first,<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span> and second requests for discovery.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span> It was therefore not open to her to now seek discovery in respect of those documents in SUM 1346.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 In any event, the payslips were, in my judgment, not necessary for the hearing of the ancillary matters. For one, the Husband had already disclosed his income tax statements. Those statements would clearly allow his income and means to be assessed. Insofar as the Wife had claimed that she wanted the payslips to show that the Husband could clearly pay more as a matter of child maintenance, our jurisprudence makes it clear that parties should, in seeking to quantify what are a child’s reasonable expenses, parties should avoid an “overly mathematical approach where receipts are adduced to prove every single item of expenditure”: <em>WBU</em> at [10]. It was therefore not necessary for the Wife to have the Husband’s payslips in order to propose a suitable figure in respect of the quantum of child maintenance.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 The Wife’s application for discovery in SUM 1346 is therefore dismissed. Parties are to file their written submissions on costs by 12 July 2024, limited to a maximum of 3 pages each. The time limited for filing an appeal shall only begin to run once I have issued my decision on costs.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 For the avoidance of doubt, nothing that I have said here shall bind the hands of the judge hearing the ancillary matters.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 Finally, it remains for me to thank Ms Wong and Mr Thirumurthy 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>Husband’s Reply Affidavit to SUM 1346 dated 13 May 2024 at p 23 – 25.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>Husband’s Reply Affidavit to SUM 1346 dated 13 May 2024 at p 149.</p></div></content></root>	aebfe737463d402f2894e4936c6fadd1175f2d24

Links from other tables

11 rows from item_version in fc_judgments_changed