fc_judgments_version: 80

This data as json

_id	_item	_version	_commit	tags	date	court	case-number	title	citation	url	counsel	timestamp	coram	html	_item_full_hash
80	65	2	1792									2024-08-23T16:00:00Z[GMT]		<root><head><title>XAY v XAZ</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> XAY <em>v</em> XAZ </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31974-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 60</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 2161 of 2023 (Summons No 1650, 1651, 1687 and 1688 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">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"> 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"> Tan Jin Song, Deborah Ng Wan Yun and Connie Kuan (Havelock Law Corporation) for the plaintiff; Chew Wei En (Teoh & Co 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"> XAY — XAZ </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 belonging to a third party</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">Interrogatories</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">Interrogatories</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Sufficiency of answer</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">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 The Husband is a Singapore citizen. He is represented in these proceedings by Mr Tan Jin Song (“Mr Tan”). The Wife is a Permanent Resident. Mr Chew Wei En (“Mr Chew”) currently represents her in these proceedings.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 Parties were married on 25 October 1999 in China. A few years later, they welcomed their twin daughters into the family.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 The details as to why their marriage broke down are scant. What is, however, disclosed is that the Husband filed for divorce on 11 May 2023. He did so on the basis that they had lived apart for at least 4 years. Interim judgment was granted on 20 November 2023, and parties set course for a hearing of the ancillary matters.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 Both the Husband and the Wife were dissatisfied with the responses each had provided to their respective voluntary requests for discovery and interrogatories. They have therefore each taken out their respective applications for discovery and interrogatories. SUM 1650 and 1651 of 2024 (“SUM 1650” and “SUM 1651”) are the Husband’s application for discovery and interrogatories respectively. SUM 1687 and 1688 of 2024 (“SUM 1687” and “SUM 1688”) are the Wife’s application for discovery and interrogatories respectively.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 I heard parties on 25 July 2024 and reserved judgment. This is my decision.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">SUM 1650 – The Husband’s Application for Discovery </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 It is trite law that the twin principles of relevance and necessity govern when discovery should be ordered. As to what is “relevant”, the cases state that what is relevant in the context of family cases is very wide – this ensures the proper delineation of issues and that all the necessary evidence is placed before the judge hearing the ancillary matters: <em>WWS v WWT</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31488-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 24</a> at [21] – [23] citing <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>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 Although there were 9 items as set out in the annex to SUM 1650, Mr Tan confirmed during the hearing that the Husband was not proceeding with his request in respect of Item 9. I turn now to deal with the rest of the items.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 I shall deal with Items 1 and 2 together. Item 1 was a request for the consolidated statements for the Wife’s bank accounts for the period February 2023 to February 2024:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_8-p2_a"></a>(a) DBS Savings Account No. ending -48; and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_8-p2_b"></a>(b) DBS Unit trusts Account No ending -10.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id=""></a>Mr Tan explained that the Wife had only provided her bank statements from January 2023 to November 2023, and that she did not provide her statements from December 2023 to February 2024. Mr Tan also highlighted that on 20 October 2023, the Wife had withdrawn the sums of $50,000 and $69,000 from her account. The bank statements which the Husband sought were therefore relevant and necessary to ascertain if the Wife had made other similarly large withdrawals from her account.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 Item 2 was a request for the bank statements for the Wife’s UOB Stash account ending -0-0 for the period February 2023 to February 2024. Mr Tan explained that while the Wife had disclosed her statements from June 2023 to October 2023, she did not provide her statements from November 2023 to February 2024, nor did she explain why she had not done so.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 Mr Chew’s response in relation to Items 1 and 2 was that it was a mere fishing expedition. There was no need for these documents to be disclosed because it was well-established law that the court ascertains the pool of matrimonial assets as of the date of the interim judgment.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 While it is true that the court should generally rely on the date of the interim judgment as the starting point in determining the pool of matrimonial assets (see <em>WXW v WXX</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31651-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGHCF 24</a>), this is not a rule cast in stone. The court can depart from this starting point: see <em>BPC v BPB and another appeal</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/23037-SSP.xml')">[2019] 1 SLR 608</a> at [26] (see also <em>ARY v ARX and another appeal</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/18744-SSP.xml')">[2016] 2 SLR 686</a> at [31]; <em>TQU v TQT</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/24198-SSP.xml')">[2020] SGCA 8</a> at [35] – [38]). There was, therefore, no basis to refuse disclosure on the basis that the documents were irrelevant as the pool of matrimonial assets was ascertained as at the date of interim judgment, and these statements related to a period <em>after</em> interim judgment had been granted. The judge hearing the ancillary matters is well entitled to choose an operative date, after the grant of the interim judgment, to ascertain the pool of matrimonial assets. To that end, the documents which the Husband seeks are certainly relevant and necessary.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 In the circumstances, I will allow the Husband’s request in Items 1 and 2.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 Item 3 was a request for documents setting out the Wife’s CPF contribution history showing the parties which had contributed to her CPF account, the amounts contributed, and the dates of these contributions.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 As Mr Tan explained, these documents were relevant and necessary to establishing whether the Wife had been employed in Singapore. This was because the Wife does not dispute, on the one hand, that she received CPF contributions. Yet, on the other, the Wife also states that she had never been employed in Singapore. The Wife’s position was that money had been deposited in her CPF account because she had allowed the Husband’s current partner to “use her name as an employee to reach certain quotas”.<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_15"></a>15 Although the Wife had disclosed her income tax statements and CPF statements, Mr Tan argued that this was not enough. The Husband wanted documents showing specific details relating to the amounts that had been contributed to the Wife’s CPF account – these documents went towards the issue of whether any adverse inference should be drawn against the Wife, and the extent of such an adverse inference that should be drawn.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 In response, Mr Chew argued that these documents were not necessary or relevant because the Wife had already given her income tax statements which clearly showed that she did not have to pay taxes in the past 3 years.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span> Given the extent of the Wife’s disclosure, there was, according to Mr Chew, no further need to allow the Wife’s request in respect of Item 3.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 The Wife had indeed, in her reply affidavit, produced her CPF statements from 2016 – 2023.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_3" id="Ftn_3_1"><sup>[note: 3]</sup></a></span> However, the statements which were disclosed only provided a summary of the transactions in the entire year. For example, in 2016, the Wife’s CPF statements disclose that a total of $4236.53 had been contributed to her CPF accounts. The statement further discloses that either herself or her employer had contributed some $4070. What the statement does not show, however, is <em>who</em> had made that contribution.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 I will therefore allow the Husband’s request in Item 3. In addition, I also order the Wife to disclose any payslips that she may have, or be able to obtain. If she cannot produce her payslips, she must provide an explanation along with any supporting documents. I deem it fit to make such an additional order because it appears, from her CPF statements, that she had received employer contributions to her CPF accounts – and if this is indeed the case, it is also likely that there would be a payslip providing the breakdown of her salary including the contributions to her CPF made by her employer.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19 Item 4 was a request for statements from the Wife’s CDP, investment, and trading accounts for the period February 2023 to February 2024. Mr Tan highlighted that the documents showed that on 19 January 2023, the Wife had received a sum of approximately $68,000 from her stock-broker. Given that this had taken place in the months leading up to the grant of the interim judgment, it raised the suspicion that the Wife was dissipating assets which rightfully belonged to the matrimonial pool. These statements were therefore relevant and necessary to determining whether there was indeed any dissipation of assets.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20 In response, Mr Chew argued that the Wife was not the one who had filed the divorce – it therefore could not be alleged that she was dissipating assets in anticipation of the divorce.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21 I could not agree with Mr Chew’s argument. The cases make it clear that it is useful for the court to have a snapshot of the parties’ financial situation in the months leading up to the breakdown of their marriage and the filing of the divorce: <em>WXY v WXZ</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31610-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 36</a> at [34] citing <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> at [19]; <em>WZH v WZI</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31841-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 48</a> at [9]. It matters very little as to which party had fired the first shot in filing for the divorce. For example, the defendant to a divorce suit may well have, in sensing that the writing was on the wall and that divorce proceedings were imminent, taken steps to put their assets out of reach.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22 I therefore allow the Husband’s request in respect of Item 4.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23 Item 5 was a request for documents showing the amounts the Wife had received from lending her name to various friends and other people to set up companies.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24 The Husband had asked for these documents because in the Wife’s Affidavit of Asset and Means (“AOM”), she had stated:<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_4" id="Ftn_4_1"><sup>[note: 4]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Apart from the online work I was doing, in order to supplement our income, I would also lend my name to various friends and other people, who needed to use my name to set up companies. This includes the [Husband] and the company known as [MX] was one such instance. The [Husband] wanted to start a side business while remaining employed.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25 The documents provided by the Wife, however, painted a different picture. The Husband points to two emails disclosed by the Wife. These emails are written by two separate individuals, [“XL”] and [“HS”]. Both emails state that they had used the Wife’s name to set up their company, but they had never given her any money for this – the Wife had helped them out as they were friends.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_26"></a>26 The Wife claimed that she had already provided all the documents she had – if the Husband was dissatisfied, this was a matter to be raised in submissions at the hearing of the ancillary matters.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_27"></a>27 I will allow the Husband’s request in respect of Item 5. I note that parties do not dispute either the relevance or necessity of these documents. Rather, their quarrel centres over whether the Wife had indeed produced all the relevant documentation. In that vein, I add that the Wife cannot sidestep her disclosure obligations by claiming, without more, that she does not have the documents. She must, minimally, furnish an explanation as to why she cannot produce the documents along with any relevant documents in support.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_28"></a>28 Item 6 was a request for the annual financial statements for the Wife’s businesses in China from 2016 – 2019.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_29"></a>29 Mr Tan argued that the Wife should provide the relevant documents to substantiate her claim that she had earned about SGD 1 million and used it to purchase 2 commercial properties during the marriage as she had alleged at paragraph 16(h) of her first AOM.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_30"></a>30 Mr Chew stated that the Wife did not have any documents and thus was unable to provide disclosure of the same. To be clear, Mr Chew did not dispute that there were no such documents in existence.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_31"></a>31 During the hearing, I had asked Mr Tan why the Husband wanted these documents. After all, if the Wife had claimed that she had used her profits from her company to purchase two commercial properties, but had not provided proof of the same, that was to her detriment. Mr Tan explained that the documents were also needed to determine if there was anything else that the Wife had yet to disclose. Mr Tan also argued that without these documents, it was impossible to ascertain how much the Wife had earnt from her business in China, let alone begin to frame any submissions on any adverse inferences that should be drawn.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_32"></a>32 I agree with these points made by Mr Tan. Leaving aside the general principle that the party who asserts must prove their case, I am of the view that these documents were certainly relevant to the issue of whether any adverse inference should be drawn as well as ascertaining the Wife’s means.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_33"></a>33 I will allow the Husband’s request in respect of Item 6.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_34"></a>34 I come now to Item 7. This was a request for documents showing the monthly income received by the Wife’s rental property in China including, but not limited to, the tenancy agreements as well as bank statements to show the rental income received.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_35"></a>35 There was some dispute, at the hearing, as to whether the Husband was going beyond his original request for documents for the period February 2023 to date. Mr Tan clarified that what the Husband was simply asking for was that if the Wife took the position that she was unable to disclose these documents, she should provide an explanation including any supporting documents (<em>eg</em>, documents showing that the tenancy had ended prior to February 2023).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_36"></a>36 I will allow the Husband’s request in respect of Item 7. The documents sought were relevant and necessary to establishing the Wife’s means – it had a direct bearing on issues such as maintenance. I note that the Wife claimed that she had already complied with the Husband’s original request as there was no rental from February 2023 onwards.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_5" id="Ftn_5_1"><sup>[note: 5]</sup></a></span> However, as Mr Tan rightly points out, if the Wife does not have these documents, she must provide an explanation along with any relevant supporting documents.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_37"></a>37 Item 8 was a request for documents to show the current valuation of the Wife’s rental property in China. Mr Tan argued that all the Wife had provided in relation to the valuation of this property was the screenshot of a text message from a person purporting to be the agent that had helped the Wife purchase the property. The message said that the Wife would receive 270,000 yuan if the property was sold.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_6" id="Ftn_6_1"><sup>[note: 6]</sup></a></span> Mr Tan argued that this was insufficient disclosure – if she had purchased the property, there must be some documents evidencing that transaction. These documents would also disclose the value of the property.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_38"></a>38 In response, Mr Chew argued that any dispute as to the valuation of the property was a matter for submissions and should not be tested in the discovery process.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_39"></a>39 While disputes as to the valuation of the property are, as Mr Chew rightly points out, a matter best left for submissions, there must be some evidential basis for the parties to dispute the valuation of the property. Simply put, there must be certain documents showing, <em>inter alia</em>, how the value of the property was derived. This would include documents which form part of the paper trail created in property transactions: for instance, bank loans which had been taken out or an option to purchase. In this connection, I agreed with Mr Tan that there was simply insufficient disclosure on the Wife’s part in the present case. This text message alone was simply not enough.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_40"></a>40 I will therefore allow the Husband’s request in respect of Item 8. The Wife shall disclose any documents that shed light on the valuation of the China property.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">SUM 1651 – The Husband’s Application for Interrogatories </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_41"></a>41 It is trite law that the twin principles of relevance and necessity govern when interrogatories are ordered. One other consideration that must be taken into account is whether the answer which had been provided is sufficient, and not whether the answer which had been provided was true. The truth of any of the answers is a matter to be determined by the judge hearing the ancillary matters. These are the principles which I apply to both SUM 1651 and SUM 1688. I note, at the outset, that parties did not dispute the relevance or necessity of these interrogatories – rather, the main dispute centred on the sufficiency of the answer which had been provided by the Wife.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_42"></a>42 This was the interrogatory posed in Item 1:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Please state the source(s) of contributions to your CPF accounts.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_43"></a>43 This was the answer which the Wife had provided:<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_7" id="Ftn_7_1"><sup>[note: 7]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">The contributions are made by companies who had used our client’s name as an employee. Our client received no income other than the CPF contributions that were made by these companies.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_44"></a>44 This was, in my judgment, not a sufficient answer. The interrogatory posed had asked the Wife to state the source(s) of contributions to her CPF account. While the interrogatory could perhaps have been framed with more precision, for example, by asking the Wife to list all the entities that had contributed to her CPF account, it was apparent to me that this was exactly the intent of the interrogatory which had been posed. It was insufficient for the Wife to merely state, without going into detail, that she was receiving payment from certain companies which had used her name as an employee.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_45"></a>45 The Husband’s request in respect of Item 1 is allowed.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_46"></a>46 I turn now to Item 2. This was the interrogatory posed:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">With reference to the allegation that apart from the online work that you were doing, in order to supplement your income, you also lent your name to various friends and other people, who needed to use your name to set up companies, please state:</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(a) The names of the people and the businesses that you have lent your name to, the dates of incorporation of the companies and the names and UEN of the companies; and</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(b) The income that you received for each of the business(es) that you lent your name to.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_47"></a>47 One part of the answer which the Wife had provided in her response dated 25 April 2024 contained a formatting error. The Wife’s amended response to clarify that part of her answer was provided in an email from her lawyers dated 23 May 2024. For ease of analysis, the Wife’s response to Item 2 is reproduced below:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(a) The names of the friends are [XL] and [HS]. The names of the companies are [CD] and .[SLE]. The Plaintiff is aware of the UEN number and incorporation dates as the ACRA profile of these companies are already provided earlier. The Defendant does not recall the dates and the UEN numbers in any event.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(b) The Defendant only received about $400 (ex gratia payment).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_48"></a>48 It was clear to me that the Wife’s response in respect of Item 2(a) was sufficient. She had answered every part of the interrogatory, and disclosed the names of her friends and corporate entities that she had lent her name to. That said, I make no comment as to the <em>truth</em> of the answer provided – this is a matter to be ventilated at the hearing of the ancillary matters.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_49"></a>49 As for the Wife’s response in respect of Item 2(b), that was, in my judgment, an insufficient answer. The interrogatory as framed in Item 2(b) had specifically asked the Wife to state the income for <em>each</em> of the businesses that she had lent her name to. The Wife had not done this. As a consequence, it is unclear whether she had received $400 from <em>each</em> of the corporate entities she had named, or whether she had received $400 in total. In that vein, I would go further to add that an unclear or ambiguous answer cannot be considered a sufficient answer to an interrogatory.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_50"></a>50 The Husband’s request in respect of Item 2(b) is allowed. His request in Item 2(a) is disallowed.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_51"></a>51 I turn now to Item 3. This was the interrogatory posed:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">With reference to your China business that was set up sometime in 2016 and involved the buying and selling of cars as well as an internet business, please state:</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(a) details of the “internet business”;</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(b) if you incorporated the business(es) in China;</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(c) your capital for the business(es) and the source for the same;</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(d) the amount you earned from the business(es) from the time it was incorporated until the time the business “folded”; and</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(e) the exact date on which the business(es) “folded”.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_52"></a>52 This was the Wife’s response:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(a) The name of the company was [ST].</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(b) Yes. The Defendant was a franchisee from a major internet business company in China.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(c) It was from the Defendant’s savings.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(d) The Defendant does not recall the same but estimates that it was more than S$1 million.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(e) 17 September 2018.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_53"></a>53 While the Husband is perfectly entitled to dispute the truth of the Wife’s response, there can be, in my judgment, no dispute as to the sufficiency of the answer. It is clear that the Wife had answered each and every part of the interrogatory posed.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_54"></a>54 The Husband’s request in respect of Item 3 is disallowed.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">SUM 1687 – The Wife’s Application for Discovery </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_55"></a>55 I turn now to deal with the Wife’s application for discovery in SUM 1687.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_56"></a>56 Item 1 was a request for the Husband’s CDP statements for the years 2017 – 2021. Mr Chew explained that the statements were needed to piece together the value of any shares which the Husband had in his CDP account. In response, Mr Tan said that the Husband did not have any of these statements. Mr Tan also argued that the period of disclosure sought was too wide as it covered the period prior to the breakdown of the marriage and the filing of the divorce.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_57"></a>57 Insofar as the period of disclosure is concerned, given the threadbare details provided in the Statement of Particulars, it is difficult to say with any measure of certainty when the marriage had begun to break down. What has been stated, however, is that parties had begun to sleep in separate bedrooms sometime around March 2019. In light of this, I do not think that the period of disclosure sought is an unreasonable one.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_58"></a>58 I will therefore allow the Wife’s request in respect of Item 1. If the Husband is unable to produce these documents, he must provide an explanation along with any supporting documents.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_59"></a>59 Item 2 was a request for the Husband to produce the statements for the years 2017 – 2021 for the following bank accounts:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_59-p2_a"></a>(a) DBS account ending xx-7</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_59-p2_b"></a>(b) DBS account ending xx-1</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_59-p2_c"></a>(c) DBS account ending xx-0; and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_59-p2_d"></a>(d) HSBC Advance Account ending -xx2.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_60"></a>60 As Mr Chew explained, the Wife was seeking discovery of these bank statements for an extended period because the Husband had stated, on the one hand, that his salary was very low, yet on the other, he was able to make payment of some $600,000 towards the mortgage. These bank statements were therefore relevant and necessary towards ascertaining the true extent of the Husband’s financial means and resources.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_61"></a>61 Mr Tan’s response was that the Husband had already disclosed his source of funds at para 15.6 of the Husband’s first AOM:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">The current value of the Matrimonial Property is S$1,660,000.00 (Annex 6) and the loan left is S$66,366.43 (Annex 5). The nett value is therefore approximately S$1,593,633.57. I also wish to say that if I depended on my salary alone, that would be insufficient for all this payment and the family’s expenses over the years. I had actually worked as much overtime as I could, and if I could not (due to limited hours) I would find odd jobs and work on the side. Due to my skills, I did manage to save up for all this expenditure.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id=""></a>Mr Tan also argued that insofar as the Wife might harbour suspicions that the Husband had dissipated assets which rightfully belonged to the matrimonial pool, there was simply no such evidence that could give rise or lend credence to such suspicions.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_62"></a>62 I note that the Husband had produced, in his reply affidavit to SUM 1687, an email from HSBC stating that the partial redemption of $531,000 had taken place on 15<sup>th</sup> November 2016. According to the Husband, he had managed to come up with this amount, notwithstanding his low salary, from all the side income he had earnt from doing odd-jobs. There are, however, no details in his first AOM, as to how much income he had derived from these odd-jobs, and no supporting documents to that effect.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_63"></a>63 I will therefore allow the Wife’s request in Item 2. In addition to this, I will also order that the Husband is to disclose any bank statements that he may have, or that he may be able to obtain from January 2010 to December 2016. If the Husband is unable to produce these bank statements, he must provide an explanation, as well as documents in support (<em>eg</em>, a response from the bank stating that the account statements are no longer available due to the passage of time).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_64"></a>64 In my judgment, these documents are certainly relevant and necessary to the disposal of the ancillary matters. They would allow the court to determine whether the Husband had indeed made full and frank disclosure of his financial means and resources. These documents would also shed light on whether there indeed any other assets belonging to the Husband which have yet to be disclosed, and also allow the Wife to ascertain the Husband’s means from the comings and goings of his bank accounts. I have also ordered a wider period of disclosure than what the Wife had sought because, having read the Husband’s first AOM, it appeared to me that the bank statements from 2010 to 2016 were also necessary to piecing together how the Husband had managed to not only pay off a sum of almost $500,000 towards the mortgage, but also the sum of approximately $90,000 towards his life insurance premium (see below at [76]) <em>despite</em> claiming to draw a salary of $2000 – $3000 and doing some odd jobs on the side.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_65"></a>65 Item 3 was a request for the Husband to show cash payments that he had made towards the matrimonial home including, but not limited to, the HSBC mortgage loan. Given that I have allowed the Wife’s request in respect of Item 2, I make no order in relation to Item 3.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_66"></a>66 Item 4 was a request for documents to show how much the Husband had earnt including the odd jobs and work that he had done on the side. It is clear why the Wife had made this request – the Husband had declared that he paid down the mortgage with his earnings from his side income. The Wife thus wanted documents to ascertain the true extent of the Husband’s means.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_67"></a>67 Mr Tan argued that the Wife’s request should not be allowed. He argued that if the Wife took the position that the Husband was indeed richer than he had disclosed, that was a matter to be ventilated at the hearing of the ancillary matters. There was, in any event, sufficient evidence on record to show the Husband’s means.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_68"></a>68 I will allow the Wife’s request in respect of Item 4. As I have explained above (at [64]), it is unclear how the Husband managed to put together the financial resources to pay off the mortgage as well as his life insurance premiums. Although I had also ordered the Husband to disclose his bank statements from January 2010 to December 2016, the bank statements may not give the full scope of the work the Husband had engaged in on the side. The Husband could well have received payments in cold hard cash for the odd jobs that he had done. The scope of the Wife’s request in Item 4 goes beyond bank statements and includes documents such as invoices and payslips. These documents, together with the Husband’s bank statements, would paint a fuller picture of the Husband’s financial means. It goes without saying, therefore, that these documents are indeed relevant and necessary to the hearing of the ancillary matters.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_69"></a>69 I shall deal with Items 5 and 6 together. This was the Wife’s request for source documents (such as statements, valuation reports, company resolutions etc) to support various details that had been listed in the financial statement of MX the financial years 2022 and 2023 respectively. During the hearing, Mr Chew clarified that the Wife was not proceeding with her request for the documents showing the increase in the amounts owed to third parties as the Husband had provided the relevant documents.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_70"></a>70 As to why Items 5 and 6 were relevant and necessary, Mr Chew explained that the source documents were needed to ascertain the legitimacy of the loans which MX had taken out. This was because the value of MX, according to the Husband, was effectively zero – the value of the properties it owned was cancelled out by its debt.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_71"></a>71 Mr Tan’s response was that MX was an exempt private company and, as such, was not required to file financial statements. According to an ACRA statement which the Husband had disclosed, MX had not filed any financial statements in the past 3 years.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_8" id="Ftn_8_1"><sup>[note: 8]</sup></a></span> Mr Tan also emphasised that while the Husband did produce some company documents, this did not mean that he would be able to produce the rest of the company documents sought. This was because the Husband was only a 50% shareholder, and one of two directors.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_72"></a>72 As a matter of strict formal logic, there is much force to Mr Tan’s argument that just because the Husband could produce <em>some</em> of the company documents, this did not necessarily mean that he could produce <em>all</em> of the company documents. The point which Mr Chew made, however, as I understood it, was that because the Husband was able to produce <em>some</em> of the company documents, the inference to be drawn is that these documents were in indeed his power, custody or possession such that disclosure should be ordered.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_73"></a>73 I agree with Mr Chew’s point. I would also add that these documents were certainly relevant and necessary to the determination of the ancillary matters – they would shed light on the valuation of MX, and also allow the court to determine whether any adverse inferences should be drawn.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_74"></a>74 The Wife’s request in respect of Items 5 and 6 is allowed.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_75"></a>75 Item 7 was the Wife’s request for documents to prove the source of funds used to pay for the Husband’s life insurance policy. As Mr Chew explained during the course of the hearing, the Wife wanted the documents to ascertain how the Husband had been able to afford the premium for this policy given his income. In other words, as I understood Mr Chew’s argument, the Wife wanted these documents to ascertain if the Husband indeed had deeper pockets than he had declared in his 1<sup>st</sup> AOM, and if so, how deep those pockets were.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_76"></a>76 The Husband had disclosed some details relating to this policy in his first AOM. The surrender value of the policy comes in at $106,814.48. The documents also show that the Husband had made a single cash payment towards the premium.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_9" id="Ftn_9_1"><sup>[note: 9]</sup></a></span> It also bears noting that the Husband himself had declared, in his first AOM, that his salary in 2011 was SGD $2706 and his salary in 2013 was SGD $3000. The Husband also recounts that in June 2013, he had very reluctantly, “bitten the bullet” and acceded to his Wife’s demands to purchase the matrimonial home:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">…Based on what I could find, my salary was only S$2,706 in 2011 (Annex 22). My salary would have been around S$3,000 in 2013 from my recollection. I knew clearly that purchasing the property would be a heavy burden given my salary. However, I thought of the children and as I was still young, I bit the bullet and purchased the Home, since the mortgage payments would only commence in 4 years. The purchase price was S$1,007,160 and the loan was S$705,000. As explained in paragraph 15.2 above, the downpayment was paid by me alone. If I knew that the Defendant would turn back on her word to sell the property, I would have never agreed to buy it…</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_77"></a>77 Given what the Husband had disclosed, the documents which the Wife seeks are indeed relevant and necessary in two ways. First, they would allow the Wife, as well as the court, to assess whether the Husband had indeed made full and frank disclosure of his income and assets. Second, these documents could well reveal whether the Husband had <em>other</em> assets which he had yet to disclose. Although I had ordered the Husband to disclose his bank statements from 2010 onwards (see above at [63]), it could well be the case that the bank statements would not disclose the source of funds which the Husband had used to pay the premiums on his life insurance.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_78"></a>78 I therefore allow the Wife’s request in respect of Item 7.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_79"></a>79 I shall deal with the final two items (8 and 9) together. This was the Wife’s request for documents evidencing loans of about $1 million and $464,000 which both Mr B, as well as the Husband, had made to MX. Specifically, these were the requests the Wife had made:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_79-p2_a"></a>(a) Item 8: documents such as MX’s bank statements as well as Mr B’s bank statements to demonstrate that $1,090,000 was owed to Mr B as of 31 March 2021.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_79-p2_b"></a>(b) Item 9: documents such as MX’s bank statements as well as the Husband’s bank statements to demonstrate that $464,811 was owed to the Husband as of 31 March 2023.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_80"></a>80 Mr Tan argued that disclosure should not be ordered – the issue of whether the loans which had been made to MX were legitimate was, properly speaking, a matter for submissions.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_81"></a>81 Insofar as Item 8 was concerned, it appeared that the Wife was essentially seeking discovery against a third party. Mr Chew clarified that this was not the case – rather, because the Husband had produced Mr B’s bank statements, this suggested that these bank statements were indeed within his possession, custody or power such that the Husband could be ordered to produce them.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_82"></a>82 Mr Tan countered that the Wife’s request in respect of Item 8 was, in substance, an application for discovery against a third party. Given that Mr B was a non-party to the present action, the proper thing to do was for the Wife to take out an application for discovery against a third party (see Rule 71 of the Family Justice Rules 2014).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_83"></a>83 The obligation of a party to give discovery extends to documents which are, or have been, in their possession, custody or power. This is enshrined in Rule 63 of the Family Justice Rules 2014. The definition of the terms “possession”, “custody” or “power” are neatly encapsulated by the learned authors in Chen Siyuan, Eunice Chua, Lionel Leo, Family Procedure in Singapore (LexisNexis, 2018) (“Family Procedure in Singapore”) at [63.03]:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">“Possession” refers to both a physical holding of and possessory right over the document; “custody” refers to the physical possession but not the legal rights over the document and “power” refers to an enforceable legal right over the document.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_84"></a>84 The commentary provided in the White Book is also relevant (<em>Singapore Civil Procedure 2021 vol 1</em> (Cavinder Bull gen ed) (Sweet & Maxwell, 2021) (“White Book”) at [24/1/4]):</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">“Documents which are or have been in his possession, custody or power” (r.1(1))—</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-2">This rule in effect embodies the practice and decisions under the former O.31 in the U.K. in regard to discovery of documents. Under that Order a distinction was made (following the old Chancery practice) between the obligation to make discovery of documents and the obligation to produce documents for inspection. There was an obligation to disclose documents which were or had been in the deponent’s possession or power and in which he had a joint property with other persons or no property at all, and also, semble, documents which were or had been in his mere custody (Bray, p. 225); there was no obligation to produce them for inspection (see Edward Bray, <em>The Principles and Practice of Discovery</em> (London: Reeves and Turner, 1885), pp. 196–209, 224–227). <b>The word “custody”, included in the present rule, makes clear that the party is under a duty to disclose documents belonging to others of which he has (or has had) mere custody.</b></p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Accordingly the party must disclose under an order made under this rule (and the court has power to order him to do so under r.3(1)) the following classes of documents:</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(1) Documents that are or have been in his possession. Possession is distinguished from mere corporeal holding, i.e. custody. A bailee or agent has possession of documents entrusted to him for the owner; a servant, who has no legal right to possession, as such has merely custody.</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(2) Documents that are or have been in his custody. Therefore documents of a limited company, held by an employee or director ordered to make discovery, are included in one or other of these two classes.</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(3) Documents that are or have been in his power. These include all documents which, though they are not in his possession or custody, he has an enforceable legal right to obtain from the person who has them (see discussion in <em>Anthony Wee Soon Kim v. UBS AG</em> [2002] S.G.H.C. 206, affirming <em>Lonrho Ltd v. Shell Petroleum Co. Ltd.</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/English/14132-E-M.xml')">[1980] 1 W.L.R. 627</a>), e.g. where he is the owner and has not parted with the right to possession. It follows that the words include also:</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-3">(a) Documents which are or have been in the possession, custody or power of any agent for him (see <em>Murray v. Walter</em> (1839) Cr. & Ph. 114 at 125; <em>Swanston v. Lishman</em> (1881) 45 L.T. 360; <em>Mertens v. Haigh</em> (1863) 3 De G. J. & S. 328; <em>Yasuda Fire & Marine Co. of Europe Ltd. v. Orion Marine Insurance Underwriting Agency Ltd.</em> [1995] Q.B. 174; [1995] 3 All E.R. 211 (continuing entitlement in principal after termination of agency in absence of express exclusion to the contrary to documents relating to acts done in his name during agency)).</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-3">(b) Documents which are or have been in his possession, custody or power jointly with or as agent or servant of some other person (see cases cited under (a) above and <em>Taylor v. Rundell</em> (1841) Cr. & Ph. 104; <em>Bovill v. Cowan</em> (1870) L.R. 5 Ch. 495).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_85"></a>85 It is therefore clear that a respondent to a discovery application can be ordered to disclose documents belonging to a third party if those documents have been in his custody. In determining whether these documents have been in the respondent’s custody, it is relevant to consider factors such as the relationship between the respondent and the third party to which the documents belong as well as the nature of the documents in respect of which disclosure is sought. If the evidence discloses that the respondent has had access to the third party’s documents – that too is a highly relevant factor (see e.g.: <em>Sterilab & Santé Global v Secretary of State for Health</em> [2024] EWHC 1708 (TCC) at [7] and [21] citing <em>Public Institution for Social Security v Al Wazzan</em> [2024] EWHC 480 (Comm) at [28] and <em>Berkeley Square Holdings Limited v Lancer Property Asset Management Limited</em> [2021] EWHC 849 (Ch) at [46])).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_86"></a>86 Returning to the present case, it was apparent to me that Mr B had a close business relationship with the Husband. Several pieces of evidence point me to this conclusion. For one, the Husband had recounted in his first AOM the extent of his business dealings with Mr B.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_10" id="Ftn_10_1"><sup>[note: 10]</sup></a></span> It is also worth noting that Mr B is the joint shareholder-director of MX alongside the Husband. In addition to this, the Husband had also disclosed, in his first AOM, Mr B’s bank account statements with specific transactions highlighted to show that Mr B had paid the Wife $590,000 to acquire her shares in MX.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_87"></a>87 That being said, the documents which the Wife seeks are Mr B’s personal bank statements. Even accounting for the supposedly close relationship between the Husband and Mr B, I do not think it likely that the Husband would have had custody of Mr B’s bank statements showing the loan of $1,090,000 made to MX. While the Husband did produce Mr B’s bank statements in his first AOM, I consider that he was able to do so because he had, in all likelihood, asked Mr B for help. This, however, does not mean that the Husband has had custody of <em>all</em> of Mr B’s bank statements – these are, after all, documents of a highly sensitive and personal nature.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_88"></a>88 The proper thing to do, therefore, was to take out an application for discovery against a third-party pursuant to Rule 71 of the Family Justice Rules 2014. Insofar as the Wife sought disclosure of Mr B’s bank statements in Item 8 – that request is, therefore, disallowed.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_89"></a>89 That being said, I was of the view that the documents sought in Items 8 and 9 were certainly relevant and necessary given that they would cast light on the legitimacy of the loans made to MX by the Husband and Mr B. This has a direct bearing on the valuation of assets to be included in the matrimonial pool (assuming, of course, that the Husband’s shares in MX are eventually included in that pool). The Wife’s request in respect of Item 9 is therefore allowed. As for Item 8, while I disallow the Wife’s request, I will instead order that the Husband disclose documents showing that MX had received the sum of $1,090,000 from Mr B.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">SUM 1688 – The Wife’s Application for Interrogatories</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_90"></a>90 I deal first with the Wife’s request in Items 1 and 2. This was the interrogatory posed in Item 1 of the Wife’s application:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">The Plaintiff is to particularise his employment history throughout the marriage, including but not limited to fully particularising “all odd jobs and work on the side” that he has allegedly done. This shall include details such as what was the job, number of hours spent on the job, remuneration of the job, how he was paid and where the monies from such “odd jobs and work on the side” were deposited into.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_91"></a>91 This was the Wife’s request in Item 2:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">The Plaintiff is to state particularise his total income earned during the marriage, including but not limited to his employment income with [FG] and ‘odd jobs and work on the side’.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_92"></a>92 The Husband had objected to answering both these interrogatories in his response on the basis that it was not relevant, and in any event, he had provided the details which the Wife sought in his first AOM. The Husband also objected to this request on the basis that it was vexatious and oppressive. In response to the Wife’s claims that this interrogatory was relevant to ascertain the Husband’s claim that he was the main financial contributor to the family, the Husband also said, in his response, that the Wife did not, in any event, allege that she had made any contributions during the marriage, and she had in fact claimed that she was unemployed since 2007.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_93"></a>93 This was what the Husband had said in his first AOM in relation to the odd jobs he had worked:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">16.9 As mentioned above, in May 2008, parties purchased their first matrimonial property at 899B Woodlands Drive 50. Since the Defendant did not have her own income or much savings, most if not all of the funds came from the monies I saved and sent to her. During this period, I often went to the supermarket to purchase groceries after work and cooked for the family after returning home. <b>After dinner, I will take out my tools and start doing repairs for people to earn some side income.</b> I have never slept before midnight, and it was common that I had to stay up until 1am or 2am. My health has been greatly affected and I am no longer able to work like that now sadly.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[emphasis added]</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_94"></a>94 Apart from this mention of doing repairs to earn some side income, the Husband provides no further details in his first AOM. He does not disclose how much he had made from these side gigs, nor has he provided details as to how long he continued to do these side gigs and where the money from these side gigs had gone to. I also add that while the Husband does disclose his <em>current</em> salary and make passing reference to how his salary had increased over the years, he does not really set out sufficient detail to piece together the total income he had earnt over the course of the marriage. The Husband also makes no mention of any salary he had earnt from [FG].</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_95"></a>95 In short, the Husband’s reference to his AOM cannot be, in my judgment, considered a sufficient answer to the Wife’s interrogatory as set out in Items 1 and 2. I will therefore allow the Wife’s request in respect of Items 1 and 2.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_96"></a>96 I turn now to deal with the Wife’s request in Item 3:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">The Plaintiff is to particularise all the transfers made by him to pay down the mortgage loan for the matrimonial home between 2017 and 2023.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_97"></a>97 The Wife had explained that this interrogatory was relevant to ascertaining parties’ contributions towards the matrimonial assets. The Husband, in his response, objected to answering this interrogatory on the basis that it was irrelevant, vexatious and oppressive, and that the Wife had, in any event, not claimed that she had made contributions towards the matrimonial property. The Husband also pointed out that the Wife had claimed that she had been unemployed since 2007.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_98"></a>98 I disallow the Wife’s request in respect of Item 3. It was not relevant, or necessary for the Husband to particularise all the transfers made by him to pay down the mortgage. What mattered more towards assessing his contributions towards the matrimonial assets was the total amount he had contributed to paying down the mortgage.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_99"></a>99 I come now to the Wife’s request in Item 4:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">The Plaintiff is to state and particularise the source of funds that he used to fund the various cheques that he wrote for the purchase of the 2 commercial properties.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_100"></a>100 The Husband responded by referring to paragraph 16.13 of his first AOM. This was what he had said:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Between 2015 to 2018, the Defendant spent most of her time in China, claiming to have found good investment and business opportunities, and that she even set up a company and a shop with someone. After she returned to Singapore, she took away the savings which I had in the bank and borrowed some money from our mutual acquaintance, Mr B. She also requested that I send her my remaining savings. I obliged as I did not want to argue with her. As such, on 27 November 2016, I transferred S$125,651.00 to her (Annex 23) and on 13 April 2017, I transferred S$300,000.00 to her (from the cash sales proceeds of S$308,933.67 from the sale of the first matrimonial home) (Annex 24) for a total of more than S$425,000.00. The Defendant also took some money from a Maybank account. However, as the account was closed too long ago, I am no longer able to retrieve the records. All the money which I sent/gave the Defendant over the years was what I painstakingly saved by being frugal and working overtime. To clarify, the Defendant later transferred the following sums back to me on the dates as shown but they only add up to S$392,340.00: S$150,000 on 18 December 2017, S$142,741.94 on 21 December 2017 and S$99,597.59 on 25 December 2017.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_101"></a>101 It is clear to me, having read this paragraph, that the Husband’s response is insufficient. The interrogatory asks the Husband to state and particularise his source of funds. In essence, the Wife wants the details of how he funded the two cheques for the purchase of the commercial properties.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_11" id="Ftn_11_1"><sup>[note: 11]</sup></a></span> While the Husband had referred to paragraph 16.13 of his first AOM, this paragraph does not clearly disclose the details of his source of funds.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_102"></a>102 The Wife’s request in respect of Item 4 is allowed.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_103"></a>103 I come now to the Wife’s final request in Item 5:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">The Plaintiff is to state the total amount of monies paid for legal fees prior to the date of the interim judgment.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_104"></a>104 The Husband had, in his response, objected to answering this interrogatory on the basis that it was a matter of legal privilege. At the hearing, Mr Tan argued that there was no practical purpose to this interrogatory. In response, Mr Chew argued that while one could indeed claim privilege in answering an interrogatory, and that this would be considered a sufficient answer (see Rule 70(1) of the Family Justice Rules 2014), the Wife’s position was that costs were not covered by legal privilege.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_105"></a>105 I disallow the request. This interrogatory was not relevant or necessary to the hearing of the ancillary matters. This is because the approach which courts have generally taken to legal costs of matrimonial proceedings is that parties should settle their own legal costs out of their own share of the matrimonial assets after division, and that legal costs should not be taken out of the matrimonial pool: <em>UZN v UZM</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/25220-SSP.xml')">[2020] SGCA 109</a> at [45] citing <em>UFU (M.W.) v UFV</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/20826-SSP.xml')">[2017] SGHCF 23</a> at [105] citing <em>AQT v AQU</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/[2011] SGHC 0138.xml')">[2011] SGHC 138</a> at [37].</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Orders Made</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_106"></a>106 In summary, these are the orders made in respect of the four applications:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a> <b>SUM 1650 (Husband’s Application for Discovery)</b> </p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_106-p2_a"></a>(a) The Wife shall state on affidavit, pursuant to Rule 63 of the Family Justice Rules 2014, in respect of Items 1 – 8 of Annex A annexed to SUM 1650, 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_106-p2_b"></a>(b) In addition, the Wife shall also disclose the following documents:</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_106-p2_b-p3_i"></a>(i) Any payslips that she may have, or be able to obtain (see above at [18]).</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_106-p2_c"></a>(c) The Wife shall exhibit, in the affidavit, a copy of each of the documents that are in her possession, custody or power. If any of the documents are not in her possession, custody or power, she is to state the reasons why, together with supporting documentation for her explanation (if any).</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a> <b>SUM 1651 (Husband’s Application for Interrogatories)</b> </p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_106-p2_d"></a>(d) The Wife shall answer the interrogatories as set out in Item 1 and 2(b) of Annex A annexed to SUM 1651 on affidavit, to the best of her knowledge, information and belief, pursuant to Rule 69 of the Family Justice Rules 2014.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a> <b>SUM 1687 (Wife’s Application for Discovery)</b> </p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_106-p2_e"></a>(e) 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 Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 of Annex A annexed to SUM 1269, 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_106-p2_f"></a>(f) The Husband shall also state on affidavit, pursuant to Rule 63 of the Family Justice Rules 2014, in respect of:</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_106-p2_f-p3_i"></a>(i) Any bank statements that he may have, or that he may be able to obtain from January 2010 to December 2016 (see above at [63]).</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_106-p2_f-p3_ii"></a>(ii) Documents showing that MX had received the sum of $1,090,000 from Mr B (see above at [89]);</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id=""></a>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_106-p2_g"></a>(g) 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 possession, custody or power, he is to state the reasons why, together with supporting documentation for his explanation (if any).</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a> <b>SUM 1688 (Wife’s Application for Interrogatories)</b> </p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_106-p2_h"></a>(h) The Husband shall answer the interrogatories as set out in Item 1, 2 and 4 of Annex B annexed to SUM 1688, on affidavit, to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, pursuant to Rule 69 of the Family Justice Rules 2014.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_107"></a>107 In addition to the above orders, parties are to file and serve their compliance affidavits by 29 August 2024. As for the costs of these four applications, parties are to write in with their submissions, by way of letter which shall be no longer than 3 pages each. These submissions are to be filed no later than 16 August 2024.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_108"></a>108 For the avoidance of doubt, nothing that I have said here shall bind the hands of the judge hearing the ancillary matters.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_109"></a>109 Finally, it remains for me to thank Mr Tan and Mr Chew for their able assistance and well-written submissions.</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 Reply Affidavit dated 4 July 2024 at para 8.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>Wife’s first NOA at p 33.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>Wife’s Reply Affidavit dated 4 July 2024 at p 21 – 69.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_4_1" id="Ftn_4">[note: 4]</a></sup>Wife’s first AOM at para 17(o).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_5_1" id="Ftn_5">[note: 5]</a></sup>Wife’s Reply Affidavit dated 4 July 2024 at para 24.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_6_1" id="Ftn_6">[note: 6]</a></sup>Husband’s Supporting Affidavit for SUM 1650 at p 164.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_7_1" id="Ftn_7">[note: 7]</a></sup>Husband’s Affidavit in Support of SUM 1651 at p 169.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_8_1" id="Ftn_8">[note: 8]</a></sup>Husband’s Reply Affidavit to SUM 1687 at pp 43 – 44.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_9_1" id="Ftn_9">[note: 9]</a></sup>Husband’s 1<sup>st</sup> AOM at p 85.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_10_1" id="Ftn_10">[note: 10]</a></sup>Husband’s first AOM at paras 15.9 and 16.13,</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_11_1" id="Ftn_11">[note: 11]</a></sup>Annex 31 of the Husband’s 1<sup>st</sup> AOM.</p></div></content></root>	c765d0478f502493b05507c9af25823ee0146c3a

Links from other tables

2 rows from item_version in fc_judgments_changed