fc_judgments_version: 64
This data as json
| _id | _item | _version | _commit | tags | date | court | case-number | title | citation | url | counsel | timestamp | coram | html | _item_full_hash |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 64 | 56 | 1 | 1780 | [
"Family Law \u2013 Costs"
] |
2024-07-29 | Family Court | Divorce No 1291 of 2023 (Summons No 1631 and 1632 of 2024) | WZR v WZS | [2024] SGFC 55 | 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%2F31852-SSP.xml | [
"Helena Amolak (Amolat & Partners) for the plaintiff",
"Li Xianliang Jevan (BC Lim & Lau LLC) for the defendant"
] |
2024-08-02T16:00:00Z[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/31852-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 55</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">29 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">Costs</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">29 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-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1 This is my decision in respect of costs for the two applications which I heard 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. My substantive decision in respect of both SUM 1631 and 1632 can be found in <em>WZR v WZS</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31842-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 51</a>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 Counsel for the Husband, Ms Helena Amolak (“Ms Amolak”) argues that there should be no order as to costs for two reasons.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 First, that both parties had equally succeeded in their respective applications – if one applies the trite principle that costs follow the event, this would effectively mean that the costs which the Husband was entitled to in respect of his own application would be cancelled out by the costs he would have to pay in respect of the Wife’s application.<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_4"></a>4 Second, there was a moderately high degree of acrimony between the parties. In particular, Ms Amolak highlights the dispute between the Husband and the Wife over care and control and access to the children, and the extensive litigation that had taken place. There was thus ample reason, according to Ms Amolak who cited the High Court decision in <em>JBB v JBA</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/18024-SSP.xml')">[2015] 5 SLR 153</a> (“<em>JBB</em>”), to make no order as to costs.<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_5"></a>5 Mr Jevan Li (“Mr Li”), who represented the Wife, took a different view as to costs. He argued that the Husband should be ordered to pay costs of $1200 for SUM 1631. As for SUM 1632, the Wife should be ordered to pay costs of $300.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 Mr Li justifies the sums sought on the basis that SUM 1631 was the more contested and complex summons as more time was spent on this summons at the hearing compared to SUM 1632. Mr Li also highlights that more work was done in respect of SUM 1631 as compared to SUM 1632.<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_7"></a>7 In my judgment, this is an appropriate case in which to apply the principles laid down in <em>JBB</em>. I agree with Ms Amolak that there is indeed much acrimony between the parties which has had an impact on their two daughters. That much is clear to me from the various documents and reports on the record. I consider that making any award of costs in this case could well, as Ms Amolak points out,<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_4" id="Ftn_4_1"><sup>[note: 4]</sup></a></span> sow further discontent between the parties and potentially have a negative impact on the children.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 There shall therefore be no order as to costs for both SUM 1631 and 1632.</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 Written Submissions on Costs at para 9.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>Husband’s Written Submissions on Costs at para 11.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>Husband’s Written Submissions on Costs at paras 4 – 8 and 12.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_4_1" id="Ftn_4">[note: 4]</a></sup>Husband’s Written Submissions on Costs at para 11.</p></div></content></root> | cfba3833ad03b1e84647a667cdfbb48754b21a3f |
Links from other tables
- 11 rows from item_version in fc_judgments_changed