fc_judgments_version: 62
This data as json
| _id | _item | _version | _commit | tags | date | court | case-number | title | citation | url | counsel | timestamp | coram | html | _item_full_hash |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 62 | 54 | 1 | 1779 | [
"Family Law \u2013 Procedure \u2013 Discovery",
"Family Law \u2013 Procedure \u2013 Discovery \u2013 Documents containing business-sensitive or confidential information",
"Family Law \u2013 Procedure \u2013 Discovery \u2013 Costs of complying with an order for discovery"
] |
2024-07-16 | Family Court | Divorce No 1291 of 2023 (Summons No 1631 and 1632 of 2024) | WZR v WZS | [2024] SGFC 51 | 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%2F31842-SSP.xml | [
"Helena Amolak (Amolat & Partners) for the plaintiff",
"Li Xianliang Jevan (BC Lim & Lau LLC) for the defendant"
] |
2024-08-01T16:00:00Z[GMT] | Soh Kian Peng | <root><head><title>WZR v WZS</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> WZR <em>v</em> WZS </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31842-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 51</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 1291 of 2023 (Summons No 1631 and 1632 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">16 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"> Helena Amolak (Amolat & Partners) for the plaintiff; Li Xianliang Jevan (BC Lim & Lau 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"> WZR — WZS </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 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> – <span style="font-style:italic">Documents containing business-sensitive or confidential information</span></p> <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> – <span style="font-style:italic">Costs of complying with an order for discovery</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">16 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 There were two applications before me at the hearing on 8 July 2024. SUM 1631/2024 (“SUM 1631”) was the Wife’s application for discovery. SUM 1632/2024 (“SUM 1632”) was the Husband’s application for discovery. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, I reserved judgment.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 This is my decision in respect of SUM 1631 and SUM 1632.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">SUM 1631</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 The Wife sought disclosure of the following documents:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_3-p2_a"></a>(a) the Statement of Accounts for the Husband’s sole proprietorship ("GC"), for the years 2020 to 2023 (including but not limited to the profit and loss account and balance sheet); and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_3-p2_b"></a>(b) Documents evidencing the estimated valuation of GC.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 Counsel for the Wife, Mr Li, cited, in both oral, and written submissions, Rule 25 of the Matrimonial Proceedings Rules.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span> As I pointed out to Mr Li during the hearing, this was clearly wrong. It was the Family Justice Rules 2014 (“FJR 2014”) that applied to this set of proceedings. That much is made clear by Rule 2 of the FJR 2014 which states:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <b>Application</b> </p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">2. Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, these Rules apply to all proceedings in the Family Division of the High Court, the Family Courts and the Youth Courts, whether such proceedings are commenced before, on or after 1 January 2015, in so far as the matters to which these Rules relate are within the jurisdiction of those Courts.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 Insofar as discovery in the context of ancillary relief was concerned, this is governed by Rules 63 – 68 of the FJR 2014. In particular, Rule 63 states:</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-Quote-3">(i) a document on which the party relies or will rely;</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-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">(4) Before an application under paragraph (1) may be filed, the applicant must serve a written request on the respondent —</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(a) seeking discovery of the said document or class of documents, in the relevant Form; and</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(b) setting out in respect of each of such document or class of documents, the reasons for requesting discovery.</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">(7) No application under paragraph (1) may be made unless —</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(a) the time specified in paragraph (5) to serve the notice has elapsed, and the respondent has not served such notice;</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(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</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(c) 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.</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-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 In the context of orders for discovery, the twin principles of relevance and necessity are also important and apply in the present case: <em>WZF v WZG</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31712-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 46</a> citing <em>WYX v WYY</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31691-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 45</a> at [5] citing <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>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 The documents which the Wife sought were financial documents relating to the Husband’s sole proprietorship. Mr Li argued that these documents were relevant and necessary to determining the issue of the division of matrimonial assets, as well as maintenance.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span> The thrust of Mr Li’s arguments was that these documents were needed to place a value on GC. In that vein, Mr Li cited the cases of <em>ULH v ULI</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/21690-SSP.xml')">[2018] SGFC 39</a> (“<em>ULH</em>”) at [23] – [25] and <em>UPU v UPV</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/22378-SSP.xml')">[2018] SGFC 99</a> (“<em>UPU</em>”) at [25] to illustrate the point that assets belonging to a spouse’s sole proprietorship could be included in the matrimonial pool.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_3" id="Ftn_3_1"><sup>[note: 3]</sup></a></span> Mr Li also made the point that every sole proprietorship had to prepare a statement of accounts for the purposes of filing taxes – this meant that there was a basis to order discovery as the statements sought did, in fact, exist.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 In response, counsel for the Husband, Ms Helena Amolak (“Ms Amolak”) explained that her client took the view that the documents sought were not relevant, and in any event, the Husband did not have the formal statement of accounts for GC or any documents evidencing the valuation of GC.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 Ms Amolak also explained that GC was merely a consultancy services business, and so there was no place of business because the Husband would work remotely from home. The business also had no equipment and no machinery. There were therefore no assets belonging to the sole proprietorship that could be valued. In any event, Ms Amolak also argued that discovery should not be ordered as the accounts of GC contained business-sensitive information relating to the Husband’s clients.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 These documents are, in my judgment, clearly relevant to the hearing of the ancillary matters claim. As illustrated by the cases of <em>ULH</em> and <em>UPU</em>, the value of assets under a sole proprietorship belonging to a spouse is a relevant consideration when it comes to ascertaining and dividing the matrimonial pool of assets. I would also add that the statement of accounts would shed some light on the Husband’s earning capacity – this would have a direct bearing on the issue of maintenance.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 For completeness, I deal with the point that the Husband had made: that disclosure should not be ordered because the documents which he did have were internal records, and those contained “business-sensitive” information relating to his clients.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_4" id="Ftn_4_1"><sup>[note: 4]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 I did not think that this was a bar to ordering discovery in the present case. It was not open to the Husband to attempt to side-step his obligation to provide disclosure with the mere assertion that the documents sought contained “business-sensitive” information. If there is indeed any confidential information contained within the documents that are to be disclosed, it was open to the Husband to provide redacted copies, or to request that he be allowed to redact any sensitive client information from those documents. In any event, safeguards exist (in the form of the <em>Riddick</em> principle) to prevent the misuse of documents which have been disclosed in an action under compulsion: see <em>WWK v WWL</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31499-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 25</a> at [30] citing <em>Third Eye Capital Corp v Pretty View Shipping SA and others</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31294-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGHC 96</a> (see also <em>Marcel v Commissioner of Police</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/English/69130-E-M.xml')">[1992] 1 Ch. 225</a> at p 237).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 The Wife’s application for discovery in SUM 1631 is therefore allowed for the reasons I have stated above. If the Husband is unable to produce these documents, he must provide an explanation in his affidavit, together with any supporting documents. To account for the Husband’s concerns over disclosing any business-sensitive information, I allow the Husband to redact, from the documents that are disclosed, information relating to client particulars. The Husband is also given liberty to apply to redact any additional information. In doing so, he must state, on affidavit, what additional information he seeks to redact, and the prejudice which would be suffered if redaction is not allowed (see <em>ACW v ACX</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/[2014] SGHC 0053.xml')">[2014] SGHC 53</a> at [34] – [35]).</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">SUM 1632</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 The Husband sought the following documents in discovery:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_14-p2_a"></a>(a) Bank statements for the POSB account ending XX-7 for the past 3 years.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 Ms Amolak argued that the bank statements were relevant to the division of matrimonial assets as well as maintenance. She further explained that SUM 1632 had been taken out because the Wife had yet to provide these documents which could easily be downloaded from the online banking portal.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 In response, Mr Li stated that his client was not resisting the application for discovery. He explained, at the hearing, that the Wife had been informed by the bank that it would cost $1080 to obtain the bank statements for the past 3 years.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_5" id="Ftn_5_1"><sup>[note: 5]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 Mr Li also urged me to “rule more creatively”, in a manner that would be in line with therapeutic justice (“TJ”) and save parties’ time and costs, by either ordering the disclosure of quarterly statements, or ordering that the cost of obtaining the statements be split between both parties.<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_18"></a>18 I will allow the Husband’s request in SUM 1632. The Wife is to disclose the bank statements for the POSB account ending XX-7 for the period January 2021 – January 2024. There can be no dispute as to the relevance and necessity of these bank statements. It is indeed useful and relevant for the court to have sight of the Wife’s financial affairs in the period before the filing of the divorce, and after the divorce had been filed (<em>Tan Bing 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> at [19]). In the present case, the Statement of Particulars discloses, at paragraph 1(d), that the marriage had broken down as early as November 2018. The Husband had eventually filed for divorce on the 22<sup>nd</sup> of March 2023. The period of disclosure which I have ordered would provide both the court, as well as the Husband, an insight into the Wife’s finances following the breakdown of the marriage and in the months leading up to, and after the divorce had been filed.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19 Insofar as Mr Li had suggested that I should rule creatively in a manner that was in line with TJ, he did not go further to flesh out this point and explain how ordering the disclosure of quarterly statements or that the costs of discovery be split between the parties would accord with the principles of TJ.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20 I could not, in any event, accept this argument. One cannot simply quote TJ, without any reference to the applicable rules and principles that form part of our family law and expect to persuade the court to grant an order in terms of the prayers sought. The notion and practice of TJ must necessarily operate within the confines of existing legal principles. As the court in <em>VVB v VVA</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/29144-SSP.xml')">[2022] 4 SLR 1181</a> had stated at [28]:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">28 <b>The notion of therapeutic justice operates within the framework of the law and does not prevail over the law</b>. Judges apply the law and legal principles in a system that is non-adversarial and conducive to problem-solving. Our family law is rich in legal principles and jurisprudence that promote therapeutic outcomes, and all legal actors in the family justice system would do well to apply the law to achieve therapeutic justice for our families.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[emphasis added]</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21 In that vein, it is clear that the costs of complying with an order for discovery is generally borne by the party giving discovery. The court can, in the exercise of its inherent powers under Rules 958 and 959 of the FJR 2014, order the party entitled to discovery to “bear a whole or a portion of the costs of compliance with such order for the giving of discovery”: Family Justice Courts Practice Directions para 81(35) and (36); Chen Siyuan, Eunice Chua, Lionel Leo, <em>Family Procedure in Singapore</em> (LexisNexis, 2018) at p 945.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22 I saw no reason, in the present case, to depart from the starting position that the party giving discovery is to bear the costs of doing so. For one, the Wife had not exhibited, in her affidavit, any evidence that she was unable to download digital copies of the bank statements free of charge. The Wife had also failed to exhibit, in her affidavit, evidence that she would have to pay $1080 to obtain these statements.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23 That being said, while the Wife has not produced evidence before me to show that it would cost $1080 to obtain the bank statements, there was equally no evidence before me to show that the Wife would <b><em>not</em></b> incur such costs in obtaining the bank statements.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24 Given this set of circumstances, I might have been inclined to provide for a situation where the Wife did indeed incur disproportionate costs in obtaining the bank statements. However, because no arguments as to whether I should make such an order were advanced, either at the hearing before me, or in the course of written submissions, I decline to make such orders in the present case.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25 I would, however, observe that in a future case, it may well be open to the party giving discovery to seek liberty to apply for an order that the party entitled to discovery is to bear the entirety, or a portion of the costs that may be incurred in complying with the order for discovery. In doing so, that party must articulate their legal and factual basis for seeking such an order. Naturally, in deciding whether it is appropriate to make such an order, the court will consider all the relevant circumstances. This could include factors such as the quantum of such costs that had been incurred or were likely to be incurred, and whether there was any reasonable way to avoid incurring such costs.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Orders Made </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_26"></a>26 I therefore make the following orders:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a> <b><u>SUM 1631</u></b> </p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_26-p2_a"></a>(a) The Husband shall state on affidavit, pursuant to Rule 63 of the Family Justice Rules 2014, in respect of the following documents as set out in SUM 1631, 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_26-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-2"><a id="p1_26-p2_c"></a>(c) The Husband is granted leave to redact, from the documents that are disclosed, information relating to client particulars. In addition, the Husband shall have liberty to apply to redact any additional information that is business-sensitive in nature.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a> <b><u>SUM 1632</u></b> </p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_26-p2_d"></a>(d) The Wife shall state on affidavit, pursuant to Rule 63 of the Family Justice Rules 2014, in respect of the following documents as set out in SUM 1632, 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_26-p2_e"></a>(e) The Wife 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 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_27"></a>27 Both the Husband and Wife are to file and serve their compliance affidavits by 12 August 2024.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_28"></a>28 As for costs of both SUM 1631 and 1632, parties are to file their submissions, which shall not exceed 3 pages, by way of letter. This is to be done no later than 23<sup>rd</sup> July 2024. For the avoidance of doubt, the time limited for filing an appeal shall only begin to run once I have issued my decision on costs, and nothing that I have said here shall bind the judge hearing the ancillary matters.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_29"></a>29 Finally, it remains for me to thank Mr Li and Ms Amolak for their able 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>Wife’s Written Submissions at para 16.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions at para 18.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions at para 35.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_4_1" id="Ftn_4">[note: 4]</a></sup>Husband’s Skeletal Arguments at p 4.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_5_1" id="Ftn_5">[note: 5]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions at para 41(b).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_6_1" id="Ftn_6">[note: 6]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions at para 42.</p></div></content></root> | a4b6025f705915285266e8ffe21e36a79852b5c7 |
Links from other tables
- 11 rows from item_version in fc_judgments_changed