fc_judgments_version: 74

This data as json

_id	_item	_version	_commit	tags	date	court	case-number	title	citation	url	counsel	timestamp	coram	html	_item_full_hash
74	62	2	1788									2024-08-15T16:00:00Z[GMT]	Goh Zhuo Neng	<root><head><title>XAW v XAX and other matters</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> XAW <em>v</em> XAX and other matters </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31931-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 27</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">Personal Protection Summons No. SS 1541/2023, SS 1542/2023, SS 1543/2023 & SS 2261/2023</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">07 August 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"> Goh Zhuo Neng </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"> S. M. Sukhmit Singh (M/S Damodara Ong LLC) for the Complainant; Yasmeen Jamil Marican (M/S Assameur LLC) for the Respondent </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"> XAW — XAX — XAN — XAO — XAL — XAM — XAJ — XAK </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Personal Protection Order</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Domestic Exclusion Order</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">7 August 2024</p></td><td><p class="Judg-Date-Reserved"></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p> <p class="Judg-Author"> District Judge Goh Zhuo Neng:</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">A. INTRODUCTION</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1 These were proceedings by two sisters against their sister and brother for Personal Protection Orders (“<b>PPO</b>”) and domestic exclusion orders (“<b>DEO</b>”) to exclude them from their late mother’s home where they resided (“<b>Residence</b>”) (collectively referred to as the “<b>Applications</b>”).</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_1-p2_a"></a>a) SS 1541 of 2023 - Complainant (“<b>Sister A</b>”) for a PPO and DEO in respect of the Residence against Respondent (“<b>Sister B</b>”). Filed on 31 August 2023 (“<b>SS 1541</b>”).</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_1-p2_b"></a>b) SS 1542 of 2023 - Complainant (“<b>Sister C</b>”) for a PPO and DEO in respect of the Residence against Respondent (“<b>Brother A</b>”). Filed on 31 August 2023 (“<b>SS 1542</b>”).</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_1-p2_c"></a>c) SS 1543 of 2023 - Complainant (“<b>Sister C</b>”) for a PPO and DEO in respect of the Residence against Respondent (“<b>Sister B</b>”). Filed on 31 August 2023 (“<b>SS 1543</b>”).</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_1-p2_d"></a>d) SS 2261 of 2023 - Complainant (“<b>Sister C</b>”) for a PPO and DEO in respect of the Residence against Respondent (“<b>Brother A</b>”). Filed on 18 December 2023 (“<b>SS 2261</b>”). This was filed to make reference to other incidents that had occurred since the filing of SS 1542.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a>I will refer collectively to Sister C and Sister A as the “Complainants” and to Sister B and Brother A as the “Respondents”.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 The applications originating from the conflict and disagreements between the siblings over the care of their late mother (“<b>Mother</b>”). The Mother became ill around 2021 and was diagnosed with colon cancer in 2022. Sister B, Sister C, Sister A lived in the home together and took care of the Mother. They were also assisted by another sister, Sister D. It should be noted that Sister A and Sister C have their own residences. Sister C normally resides in Australia with her husband and Sister A has her own home elsewhere in Singapore.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 During this period, the siblings found themselves in disagreement over the Mother’s care and the running of her household expenses and finances. They were split into two factions. The first faction comprised of Sister C, Sister A and Sister D. Sister C and Sister A were appointed as deputies over the Mother’s affairs and assets in OSM 167 of 2022 by an order dated 28 February 2023. The second faction comprised of Sister B and Brother A.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 The conflict between the siblings who continued to live in the Residence eventually escalated into verbal and physical altercations between the parties and on 31 August 2023, Sister C and Sister A filed SS 1541, 1542, 1543. On 7 September 2023, Sister C filed SS 1594 and 1595 of 2023 (“<b>SS 1594</b>” and <b>SS 1595</b>”) against Sister B and Brother A respectively for PPOs and DEOs in respect of the Mother.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 On 29 October 2023, the Mother passed away. On 2 November 2023, the Court gave leave to withdraw SS 1594 and 1595.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 On 18 December 2023, Sister C and Sister A respectively filed SS 2260 and 2262 of 2023 against Sister B (“<b>SS 2260</b>” and “<b>SS 2262</b>”), and Sister C filed SS 2261 against Brother A. In these applications they also sought PPOs and DEOs against Sister B and Brother A, but filed these applications to make reference to incidents that had occurred after the filing of SS 1541, 1542, 1543 in 31 August 2023.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 On 8 January 2024, SS 2260 and 2262 were struck off as the Complainant’s counsel was not present for their mentions. At a subsequent mentions on 16 February 2024, the Complainants applied to reinstate SS 1594, 1595, 2260 and 2262 as they wished to refer to the facts in these proceedings to obtain PPOs and DEOs against Sister B and Brother A in the Applications.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_7-p2_a"></a>(a) The Court declined to reinstate SS 1594 and 1595 as the Mother was already deceased.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_7-p2_b"></a>(b) The Court declined to reinstate SS 2260 and 2262 as the facts referred to in these matters could be placed before the Court in the hearing of the Applications by giving leave to file a supplementary affidavit.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 I only make reference to these matters for context, and because I was also required to provide a decision on costs in SS 1594, 1595, 2260 and 2262. In respect of SS 1594 and 1595, I made no order as to costs as they had been withdrawn due to the demise of the Mother who was the subject matter of the application. As for SS 2260 and 2262 I addressed the issue of costs wholistically together with the costs in the Applications as the allegations in SS 2260 and 2262 formed part of the facts raised in the Applications.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 I proceeded to hear the Applications on 25 and 26 April 2024. On the first day of trial on 25 April 2024, Brother A informed the Court that he did not wish to participate further in the proceedings due to stress arising from personal issues. He stayed until the cross examination of Sister C was completed before lunch and did not return after that. He did not show up on the second day of trial on 26 April 2024 either.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 On 26 April 2024, I dismissed the Applications against Sister B and Brother A, and ordered Sister C and Sister A to each pay Sister B $6,000.00 in costs (for a combined total of $12,000.00 in costs).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 On 8 May 2024, Sister C filed her Notices of Appeal against my decision in SS 1542/2023, SS 1543/2023 & SS 2261/2023. For completeness, I set out below my full grounds of decision in respect of all the Applications.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">B. THE LAW</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">I. <u>Family Violence</u> </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 Section 65 read with Section 64 of The Women’s Charter defines “<em>family violence</em>” as the commission of any of the following acts:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_a"></a>(a) wilfully or knowingly placing, or attempting to place, a family member in fear of hurt;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_b"></a>(b) causing hurt to a family member by such act which is known or ought to have been known would result in hurt;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_c"></a>(c) wrongfully confining or restraining a family member against his will; or</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_d"></a>(d) causing continual harassment with intent to cause or knowing that it is likely to cause anguish to a family member.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 “<em>Hurt</em>” as referred to in (a) and (b) above means “<em>bodily pain, disease or infirmity</em>”. The Women’s Charter 1961 (“<b>Charter</b>”) also clarifies that “<em>family violence</em>” does not include any force lawfully used in self-defence, or by way of correction towards a child below 21 years of age.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">II. <u>Physical Violence</u> </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 The spectrum of physical violence, restraint or threats that can amount to family violence is quite broad. Findings of family violence have been made in the following cases involving a single act or repeated acts of physical violence, restraint or threats. For instance:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_14-p2_a"></a>(a) A man prevented his wife from leaving the home by pushing her and holding on to the gate so that she could not open it (<em><u>NR v NQ</u></em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/52377-M.xml')">[2007] SGMC 4</a>).</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_14-p2_b"></a>(b) A man had slammed sister against a wall when she grabbed him in order to restrain him from attacking her friend (<em><u>Tan Ying Hui (Chen Yinghui) v Tan Zhi Xuan</u></em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/[2011] SGDC 0049.xml')">[2011] SGDC 49</a>).</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">III. <u>Continual Harassment</u> </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 Continual harassment was helpfully defined in the case of <em><u>Yue Tock Him@Yee Chok Him v Yee Ee Lim</u></em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/[2011] SGDC 0099.xml')">[2011] SGDC 99</a><span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span> (“<b>Yue</b>”) at [33] as :</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <em>“a course of conduct by a person, whether by words or action, directly or through third parties, sufficiently repetitive in nature as would cause and which he ought reasonably to know would cause worry, emotional distress of annoyance to another person…”.</em> </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 However, given the infinite ways in which people are capable of causing distress or annoyance to each other, this should not be regarded as an exhaustive definition. That was also the view of the Court in <em>Yue</em>, which noted that the above definition was <em>“not intended to be an exhaustive definition of the term but rather one that sufficiently encompasses the facts of the present case in order to proceed with a consideration of the law.”</em></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 <em>Yue</em> also provided at [42], that the acts of “<em>continual harassment</em>” must also be of a sufficiently serious magnitude in order to be regarded as “<em>family violence</em>”. Consequently, in the case of <em><u>Chua Li Choo v Teo Swee Theng</u></em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/49514-M.xml')">[2005] SGDC 241</a>, at [22], it was held that making a police report did not amount to continual harassment. In that case, a husband had made a police report after the wife had locked him out of the marital home and told him that she would only let him in if he called the police.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 This approach is understandable. At the end of the day, and given the extremely wide scope of acts that may be raised as allegations of continual harassment, a sensible and balanced approach must be taken. After all, protection orders are meant to protect people from harmful acts, and if the threshold is lowered to include acts that are merely unpleasant but without sufficient gravity, then this may result in individuals abusing the court process to settle their own petty personal disputes or vendettas.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">IV. <u>Necessity</u> </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19 Even after a finding of family violence is made on the facts, the Court still has to make its assessment of whether it is necessary to grant a protection order.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20 Necessity is determined by whether there are likely to be further acts of family violence committed against the particular family member, in the event that a protection order is not granted.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21 This is because a personal protection order is not a punitive measure to punish a person for past violence but is instead a preventive order that serves to restrain the person concerned from committing family violence in future. Therefore, if there will be no family violence in future, it serves no purpose to restrain the party concerned, and it must follow that a personal protection order would not be necessary (<em>Yue</em>, at [64]).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22 In determining necessity, the Court must consider all the circumstances, but it is useful to weigh up the following factors.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_22-p2_a"></a>a) Are the parties still living together or likely to remain in contact?</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_22-p2_b"></a>b) What is the original cause of the conflict and has it been resolved?</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_22-p2_c"></a>c) The severity of the incident of family violence.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23 I will now address the facts and the application of law to the facts.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">C. Allegations of Family Violence</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24 In the Applications, a considerable number of allegations were made in respect of the Respondents’ conduct towards their Mother (reprising facts raised in SS 1594 and 1595), their personal affairs, and their interactions with persons other than the Complainants. I informed parties that while their underlying family disputes provided some context for their disagreements, I would not make a determination on them. I was mainly concerned with the allegations involving alleged family violence against each other, which I will address further below.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">I. Allegations against Sister B</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3"> <u>Calls to the Police</u> </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25 The Complainants alleged that there were numerous occasions during which Sister B had escalated conflict by calling the police to come to the Residence. This was not borne out by the evidence. Sister C was only able to identify one incident in 2022 where Sister B had called the police. Sister B stated on the stand that she had only made two reports – April 2022 and 3 December 2023. There was therefore insufficient proof that the police were being called down regularly to the Residence by Sister B.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3"> <u>Flashing her underwear</u> </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_26"></a>26 There was a general reference in Sister C’s evidence, mirrored by Sister A and Sister D evidence, that “in past verbal jousts”, Sister B had lifted her skirt up at Sister C and Sister A, exposing her underwear. This was done to express displeasure and allegedly humiliate them. The evidence did not state any specific occasion or date when this occurred. Therefore I took the view that there was insufficient evidence that such acts had taken place.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3"> <u>27 January 2023 Incident – Alleged Physical Assault</u> </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_27"></a>27 Here, it was alleged that during an argument on 27 January 2023, Sister B had accused both Sister C and Sister A of ganging up on her, and followed Sister A into the kitchen where she had hit Sister A on the back of the head with a closed fist. During the argument, she had also accused Sister A of being a “lallang” who vacillated in her loyalties and had taunted Sister C by wagging her tongue and making odd animal noises.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_28"></a>28 I made the finding there was an argument. Sister B did taunt Sister C as stated. Sister B also admitted to calling Sister A “lallang” but claimed she only stuck her finger on Sister A’s forehead when asking her to use her own mind and not be biased in her opinions. I make the finding that Sister A was hit by Sister B on the back of her head, but it is more likely to have been a push of the head from the back as Sister A confirmed that she was still able to splash water on Sister B in response. It is clear that at the time, parties did not think much of the incident. There were no police reports made on the day or close to the date. No medical report or even pictures. It was only in 27 June 2023 when proceedings were contemplated that a police report was filed.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3"> <u>30 July 2023 – the “Shaitan” incidents</u> </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_29"></a>29 It was alleged that Sister B had called Sister C a “shaitan” (a devil) on numerous occasions. On 30 July 2023, Sister B called Sister C a “shaitan” in the morning. Later in the afternoon, Sister B told the maid to play recorded Islamic prayers as there were many “shaitans” in the house.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_30"></a>30 On this, I make the finding that Sister B called Sister C a “shaitan” not just on 30 July 2023, but numerous times. I also find that she asked the maid to play recorded Islamic prayers to ward off “shaitans” in the house later in the day on 30 July 2023. Nothing was said though about the volume at which these prayers were played at and if they were intolerably loud. While Sister B stated on the stand that she played these prayers every other day, there was actually no complaint by Sister C and Sister A about how regularly these prayers were being played. Therefore I took the view that Sister C and Sister A were not really affected by the playing of the Islamic recordings on 30 July 2023, and this cannot constitute a form of harassment. I also found that to address a person by a term of abuse may be offensive, but the law on continual harassment clearly sets a higher bar.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3"> <u>3 December 2023 – A video recording incident</u> </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_31"></a>31 On 3 December 2023, during an argument with Sister A, Sister B took out her phone and started recording Sister A. Sister B admitted to doing so. I found that making a video recording of an argument cannot constitute harassment. There was nothing offensive or insidious about the recording. Both Sister C and Sister A admitted that all the parties in the video were fully clothed and not being captured in some embarrassing or indecent situation.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3"> <u>31 October 2023 – 1st prayer incident</u> </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_32"></a>32 On 31 October 2023, Sister C went to pray in the Mother’s bedroom with the helper. Sister B was already in the room, and once Sister C and the helper started praying, Sister B scolded them for not praying in the correct Islamic verse. After being corrected by the helper, Sister B remained silent. Both Sister C and Sister B did not dispute this version of events, save as to the tone that Sister B used when correcting Sister C and the helper.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_33"></a>33 I did not think there was an issue here. Sister B made a mistake about Sister C and the helper praying in the correct Islamic verse. After being corrected, the matter ended there. There was no need to elevate it to some form of harassment.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3"> <u>4 November 2023 – 2nd prayer incident</u> </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_34"></a>34 On 4 November 2023, it was alleged that Sister B insisted to pray in a part of the Mother’s bedroom that Sister C had chosen despite Sister C having entered the room first.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_35"></a>35 This was an incident that was blown out of proportion. On cross examination, it was revealed by Sister C that while Sister C entered the room first, Sister B was the first person to enter the praying spot. At worst, it was just a disagreement. Sister C also confirmed that there were no angry or hurtful words exchanged between the parties.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3"> <u>14 November 2023 – 3rd prayer incident</u> </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_36"></a>36 On 14 November 2023, Sister C was praying in the Mother’s bedroom with one of the helpers. Sister B was talking loudly in the adjoining kitchen. After Sister C had told a helper to ask Sister B to keep her volume down, Sister B did so for a few minutes before watching videos of her grandchildren. Sister B also asked another helper loudly where the tomatoes were stored.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_37"></a>37 While I found that all of the above had happened, it is not clear that Sister B was doing so deliberately to upset Sister C.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_38"></a>38 In my view, this was another incident which was blown out of proportion. It is not clear if Sister B was even aware that Sister C was praying in her Mother’s room at the start. As for Sister B’s conduct after being told to keep quiet, she did not speak loudly in an extended conversation. She was watching her videos and it cannot be harassment to just ask a helper once where tomatoes are stored. If Sister C had wanted some privacy and quiet when praying she should simply have asked the helper to shut the door to the Mother’s bedroom and the kitchen so that the noise level could be reduced.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">31 Allegations against Brother A</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_39"></a>39 On 25 August 2023, while Sister B and Sister C were having an argument, Brother A came down to the Residence after being asked by Sister B to do so. Minutes after arriving, he got into an altercation with Sister C and forcefully pushed her head backwards with the outstretched palm of his right hand. As mentioned above, Brother A did not participate in the proceedings other than sitting through Sister C’s cross-examination, during which he did not ask any question of her. He did not present himself for cross examination and did not make submissions at the conclusion of the hearing. I therefore found Sister C’s version of events had occurred.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">32 <u>Conclusions</u> </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_40"></a>40 To summarise, I found that Brother A had inflicted physical violence on Sister C, and that Sister B had inflicted physical violence on Sister A. However, Sister B had not inflicted physical violence on Sister C or continually harassed her and Sister A. The incidents between Sister B and Sister C reflected unpleasant and rude behavior on her part but did not amount to continual harassment. It cannot be that a case of continual harassment can be mad out by aggregating every mean word or gesture that has been exchanged between two sisters who cannot get along. Therefore I dismissed SS 1543.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">D. NECESSITY</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_41"></a>41 On the issue of necessity for a PPO or DEO, I understood that parties would continue to remain in the Residence and continue to remain in conflict as there would probably be a dispute over how the Mother’s estate would be administered. Sister C, Sister A and Sister B were also joint owners of the Residence.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_42"></a>42 However, I noted that in respect of SS 1542 and 2261 (between Sister C and Brother A), both of them did not live in the same residence. Sister C stayed in the Residence and Brother A had his own home. The physical altercation between them on 25 August 2023 was a one-off incident. Therefore, I found there was insufficient likelihood that Brother A would be prompted to enter the Residence and assault Sister C. So, I dismissed the applications for a PPO and DEO in SS 1542 and 2261, noting too that the Residence was not a “shared residence” as defined under the Charter, section 64 for which a DEO could be ordered in respect of.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_43"></a>43 In respect of SS 1541 (between Sister A and Sister B), the same issue also arose. Both of them did not live in the same residence either. Sister B stayed in the Residence and Sister A had her own home. No serious physical harm was caused to Sister A during the incident on 27 January 2023, and I also regarded the altercation as a one off. So, I also dismissed the applications for a PPO and DEO in SS 1541, noting too that the Residence was not a “shared residence” as defined under the Charter, section 64 for which a DEO could be ordered in respect of.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">E. COSTS</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_44"></a>44 Costs will be ordered against Sister A and Sister C in SS1541 and 1543. In Sister A’s case, there was one case of family but no necessity. In Sister C’s case, there were no cases of family violence that were found. Here, costs of a more significant nature would be justified as numerous events and facts were adduced by both Sister C and Sister A on their longstanding disagreements with the Respondents, which were only of tangential relevance to the case, which Sister B had to respond to in her evidence. This resulted in a total of 9 affidavits filed by the Complainants and 7 affidavits filed by the Respondents which had to be ventilated in a 2 day trial. The bulk of this evidence and work done in respect of responding to them by affidavit was wasted and thrown away as they were only of tangential relevance and excluded from cross examination to focus on allegations that might make a real difference to my decision i.e. the actual incidents of alleged family violence. So the appropriate cost order would be as follows : for SS 1541 – Sister A to pay Sister B costs of $6,000, for SS 1543 – Sister C to pay Sister B costs of $6,000. This would be all in, including disbursements.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_45"></a>45 On SS 1542, 2260, 2261 and 2262, I made no costs orders. For SS 1542 and 2261, Brother A was acting in person. For SS 2260 and 2262, the cost issues in relation to the allegations made in these matters had already been addressed by my cost orders in SS 1541 and 1543 and there was no need to duplicate them.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_1_1" id="Ftn_1">[note: 1]</a></sup>Yue Tock Him@Yee Chok Him v Yee Ee Lim <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/[2011] SGDC 0099.xml')">[2011] SGDC 99</a>, para 33</p></div></content></root>	0ee5cde873c33c8114bbed057c2d6c59039725dc

Links from other tables

3 rows from item_version in fc_judgments_changed