fc_judgments_version: 66

This data as json

_id _item _version _commit tags date court case-number title citation url counsel timestamp coram html _item_full_hash
66 58 1 1780 
[
    "Family Law \u2013 Costs"
]
 2024-07-26 Family Court Divorce No 5338 of 2022 (Summons No 1739 and 1684 of 2024) WZH v WZI [2024] SGFC 56 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%2F31853-SSP.xml 
[
    "Alain Abraham Johns and Emira Binte Abdul Razakjr (Alain A Johns Partnership) for the plaintiff",
    "Muhammad Hasif Bin Abdul Aziz and Abdul Wahab Bin Saul Hamid (A.W. Law LLC) for the defendant"
]
 2024-08-02T16:00:00Z[GMT] Soh Kian Peng <root><head><title>WZH v WZI</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> WZH <em>v</em> WZI </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31853-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 56</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 5338 of 2022 (Summons No 1739 and 1684 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">26 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"> Alain Abraham Johns and Emira Binte Abdul Razakjr (Alain A Johns Partnership) for the plaintiff; Muhammad Hasif Bin Abdul Aziz and Abdul Wahab Bin Saul Hamid (A.W. Law 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"> WZH — WZI </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">26 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 the costs of SUM 1739/2024 (“SUM 1739”) and SUM 1684/2024 (“SUM 1684”). My decision in respect of SUM 1739 and SUM 1684, which were the Wife’s applications for discovery and interrogatories, can be found in <em>WZH v WZI</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31841-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 48</a>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2       Counsel for the Husband argues that there should be no order as to costs The broad thrust of his argument is that if one proceeds on the well-established rule that costs should follow the event, although the Wife may be entitled to costs in SUM 1739, the Husband should be entitled to costs of SUM 1684. The costs ordered in either application would offset each other – effectively, there would be no order as to costs.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3       Counsel for the Wife, on the other hand, argued that because the Wife had succeeded in obtaining orders for discovery, she should be entitled to costs. In doing so, counsel for the Wife relies on the starting position that costs should follow the event. Counsel for the Wife further argues that there are no facts which warrant a departure from this starting point. In fact, they say that the Husband’s conduct further justifies why he should be ordered to bear costs. In particular, counsel for the Wife highlights that the Husband had unreasonably denied their requests for discovery.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4       As for the Wife’s application for interrogatories, counsel for the Wife appears to take the position, though they do not explicitly say so, that if one applies the rule the costs follow the event, it is the Husband who should be entitled to costs because the Wife had only obtained orders in respect of one part of the four interrogatories which she had sought. That said, the Husband’s conduct justifies departing from the starting point – this is because the Husband had unreasonably refused to answer the voluntary interrogatories which the Wife had posed to him. The end result is that the Husband should also be ordered to pay the Wife costs of SUM 1684.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5       As to the quantum of costs, counsel for the Wife submitted that costs for both applications should be fixed at $3815 ($3500 as legal costs and $315 as GST).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6       The starting point insofar as costs are concerned, is that costs should indeed follow the event. The Wife has succeeded in her application for discovery in SUM 1739. She should therefore be entitled to costs.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7       As for the quantum of such costs, I considered the fact that the application for discovery only concerned one item and did not involve any particularly complex issues of law or fact.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8       I also considered the reasonableness of the Husband’s objections to the Wife’s requests for these documents at the voluntary disclosure stage.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9       The Husband had resisted disclosure on the basis that the request was not relevant, necessary or reasonable for the fair disposal of the ancillary matters, and that the Wife’s requests were: a) broad and oppressive and amounted to fishing and b) that she had not provided any adequate reason to justify the documents requested.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10     The Husband’s objections must be viewed in light of the Wife’s request. In her request dated 6 March 2024, she states that these documents relate to the Husband’s “means, earning capacity, the pool of matrimonial assets and dissipation of matrimonial assets”. It is clear, from this, that she had indeed provided adequate reasons for seeking those documents. It is also clear, from the Wife’s request, how these documents are indeed relevant and necessary to the hearing of the ancillary matters, specifically, the issue of whether matrimonial assets had been dissipated.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11     It is therefore apparent to me that these documents could have been disclosed earlier. This is especially since the Husband did not object to their production on the basis that he did not have the documents sought.<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_12"></a>12     Costs of SUM 1739 are therefore fixed at fixed at $900 (all in), to be paid by the Husband, to the Wife, by 30 August 2024.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13     As for SUM 1684 which was the Wife’s application for interrogatories, given that Wife was only successful in respect of Item 4(a), it cannot be said that she was the successful party in respect of SUM 1684. The Husband is thus entitled to costs of SUM 1684.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14     There was, in my judgment, no reason to depart from the general principle that costs should follow the event. I do not find that the Husband had acted unreasonably in resisting the request. As I had found, in my substantive decision in respect of SUM 1684, the Wife’s quarrel with his answers went to the truth of those answers rather than their sufficiency.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15     As to the quantum of costs, I considered that SUM 1684 involved four items, and did not involve any particularly complex issues of law or fact. I also considered the conduct of parties. It was clear to me, from reading the Husband’s answers to the interrogatories posed, that he had provided sufficient answers. As I have mentioned above, the Wife’s basis for taking out SUM 1684 was that she disputed the truth of the Husband’s answers. But that is not the purpose of the interrogatory process (see <em>eg</em>; Rule 70 of the Family Justice Rules 2014; <em>UJN v UJO</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/21836-SSP.xml')">[2018] SGFC 47</a>).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16     Costs of SUM 1684 are therefore fixed at $975 (all-in), to be paid by the Wife, to the Husband, by 30 August 2024.</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 Affidavit in support of SUM 1739 at p 34 and 145.</p></div></content></root> eb264114804b7e5d20169d9611e3565b3ef25f94

Links from other tables