fc_judgments_version: 54

This data as json

_id _item _version _commit tags date court case-number title citation url counsel timestamp coram html _item_full_hash
54 46 1 1769 
[
    "Family Law \u2013 Costs"
]
 2024-07-01 Family Court Divorce No 760 of 2023 (Summons No 1063 of 2024) WYA v WYB [2024] SGFC 43 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%2F31690-SSP.xml 
[
    "Lim Shu Fen (JS Law Chambers LLP) for the plaintiff",
    "Charmaine Chua Qi Shan (PKWA Law Practice LLC) for the defendant"
]
 2024-07-03T16:00:00Z[GMT] Soh Kian Peng <root><head><title>WYA v WYB</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> WYA <em>v</em> WYB </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31690-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 43</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 760 of 2023 (Summons No 1063 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"> Lim Shu Fen (JS Law Chambers LLP) for the plaintiff; Charmaine Chua Qi Shan (PKWA Law Practice 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"> WYA — WYB </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">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       This is my decision on costs in respect of SUM 1063, which was the Wife’s application for discovery and interrogatories. My written grounds in respect of the Wife’s application can be found in <em>WYA v WYB</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31611-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 37</a>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2       Counsel for the Wife argues that because she had substantially succeeded in her application, the Husband should have to pay her costs fixed at $3500 (including disbursements of $570).<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3       Counsel for the Husband, on the other hand, argued that there should be no order as to costs. Two reasons are given. First, that both parties were equally successful in SUM 1063.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span> Second, that such an order is necessary to minimise “the acrimony and discontent” between the parties. In this vein, counsel for the Husband asserts that there is a significant degree of acrimony between the parties, and that parties have a strained relationship.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_3" id="Ftn_3_1"><sup>[note: 3]</sup></a></span> There has, however, been no reference to specific examples of such acrimonious behaviour.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4       The principles relating to costs are well-established and not disputed in the present case. The starting point is that costs shall follow the event, though the court can depart from this, taking into account factors such as the conduct of parties: <em>WXE v WXF</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31618-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 40</a> citing Rule 852 and 854 of the Family Justice Rules 2014.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5       I order that costs be fixed at $1350 (all-in). I consider this to be an appropriate sum taking into account the complexity of this application, that it was heard in a half-day slot, as well as the fact that the Wife had only partly, and not substantially, succeeded in her application.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6       As a final point, I add that I could not agree with the argument made by counsel for the Husband, that there should be no order as to costs because there was a significant degree of acrimony between the parties who both had a strained relationship. This appeared to be a mere assertion. Counsel had not referred to any specific instances which evidenced such a significant degree of acrimony.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7       Having perused the various affidavits and pleadings, I was hard pressed to find instances of such conduct. In this vein, I add that it would be useful for counsel to, if they are taking the position that no order to costs should be made to avoid aggravating relations between the parties, to point to specific instances demonstrating the bad blood between the parties. This could include, amongst other things, applications for personal protection orders, or communications between the parties.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8       I conclude with one final observation. I do not think that the proposition of law laid down in <em>JBB v JBA</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/18024-SSP.xml')">[2015] 5 SLR 153</a>, can or should be used as a pretext to avoid having pay costs to the other party who has succeeded in their application. In other words, I did not think it is open to a party to simply assert, without more, that relations were acrimonious and so there should be no order as to costs. While one may expect a certain degree of acrimony in divorce proceedings given that it represents the end of a life once shared in love and joy, not every party to a divorce will react badly. Some may find, within themselves, an inner strength to move on. Others may also be able to see past their hurt, and even remain on talking terms with their former spouse. On the other end of the spectrum, however, are those who find themselves unable to let go of past hurts. It is in such situations, where it is clear to the court that there is indeed acrimony between the parties, that it might be appropriate to make no order as to costs. Such matters are, however, an assessment the court must make in the exercise of its discretion as to costs.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_1_1" id="Ftn_1">[note: 1]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions on Costs at paras 3 and 6.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>Husband’s Written Submissions at para 5.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>Husband’s Written Submissions at para 8.</p></div></content></root> 0fad2a6fb0791ff15c4cf22354db1a344ed62283

Links from other tables