fc_judgments_version: 95
This data as json
| _id | _item | _version | _commit | tags | date | court | case-number | title | citation | url | counsel | timestamp | coram | html | _item_full_hash |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 95 | 79 | 1 | 1808 | [
"Family Law \u2013 Procedure \u2013 Discovery",
"Family Law \u2013 Procedure \u2013 Interrogatories"
] |
2024-09-16 | Family Court | Divorce No 3436 of 2022 (Summons No 1809 and 2066 of 2024) | XDD v XDE | [2024] SGFC 79 | https://www.lawnet.sg:443/lawnet/web/lawnet/free-resources?p_p_id=freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet&p_p_lifecycle=1&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&_freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet_action=openContentPage&_freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet_docId=%2FJudgment%2F32212-SSP.xml | [
"Pearlyn Yeo (Yeo & Associates LLC) for the plaintiff",
"Oliver Quek (Oliver Quek & Associates) for the defendant."
] |
2024-09-30T16:00:00Z[GMT] | Soh Kian Peng | <root><head><title>XDD v XDE</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> XDD <em>v</em> XDE </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/32212-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 79</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 3436 of 2022 (Summons No 1809 and 2066 of 2024)</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Decision Date</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">16 September 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"> Pearlyn Yeo (Yeo & Associates LLC) for the plaintiff; Oliver Quek (Oliver Quek & Associates) 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"> XDD — XDE </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">Interrogatories</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">16 September 2024</p></td><td><p class="Judg-Date-Reserved">Judgment reserved</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p> <p class="Judg-Author"> Assistant Registrar Soh Kian Peng:</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1 Parties were married in Singapore on 27 June 2012. There are two children of the marriage. The Wife is a dance teacher, and the Husband is a Director who also works part-time as a Grab driver.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 The Wife filed for divorce on 29 July 2022. The matter proceeded on the contested track as parties did not agree on the basis of the divorce. At the hearing of the contested divorce on 11 October 2023, the District Judge who heard the matter dissolved the marriage on the basis that both parties had behaved in such a way that they could not be reasonably expected to live with each other.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 The interim judgment was subsequently extracted on 12 October 2023 and parties set course for a hearing of the ancillary matters. In the months that followed, parties took out various applications for discovery and interrogatories.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span> The two applications for discovery and interrogatories before me are the latest development in the procedural history of this case. SUM 1809/2024 (“SUM 1809”) was the Husband’s application for discovery and interrogatories. At the hearing, counsel for the Husband, Mr Oliver Quek (“Mr Quek”) confirmed that the Husband was no longer pursuing SUM 1809, but that his client was still pursuing the issue of costs for that summons.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 I therefore proceeded to hear SUM 2066/2024 (“SUM 2066”) which was the Wife’s application for discovery and interrogatories.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 There were seven main items in the Wife’s request for discovery and interrogatories. The Wife wanted the Husband to explain certain deposits and withdrawals that had been made from his bank accounts. Apart from this, the Wife also wanted the Husband to produce documents to support his explanation.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 As to why orders should be made in respect of all the seven items, the Wife gave the same reason: that disclosure was “necessary to determine the [Husband’s] income, assets and expenses”. During the hearing, counsel for the Wife, Ms Pearlyn Yeo (“Ms Yeo”) also clarified that the documents and interrogatories sought were also relevant to the issue of whether there had been any dissipation of matrimonial assets.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 It is trite that discovery and interrogatories will only be ordered where they are relevant and necessary to the disposal of the ancillary matters. In addition, where interrogatories are concerned, the court is only concerned as to the <b><em>sufficiency</em></b> and not the <b><em>truth</em></b> of the answers.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 Apart from these well-established principles, in making orders for discovery and interrogatories, one must also bear in mind the applicable principles of law at the hearing of the ancillary matters. It is hornbook law that the court applies a broad-brush approach to the division of matrimonial assets as well as maintenance: <em>BCB v BCC</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/[2013] 2 SLR 0324.xml')">[2013] 2 SLR 324</a> at [10]; <em>ANJ v ANK</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/17925-SSP.xml')">[2015] 4 SLR 1043</a> at [23] – [24]; <em>USA v USB and another appeal</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/24962-SSP.xml')">[2020] 2 SLR 588</a> at [43]; <em>WBU v WBT</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/29255-SSP.xml')">[2023] SGHCF 3</a> at [10] and [29] – [30]; <em>DBA v DBB</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31398-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGHC(A) 12</a> at [40]. The broad-brush approach is used as it “discourages parties from being overly focused on petty details and arguing over every cent”: Justice Teh Hwee Hwee, “From Confrontation to Collaboration: A Decade in Transforming the Family Justice Paradigm” (Keynote Address and CJ Koh Lecture 2024 delivered at the Family Conference 2024 on 3 September 2024) at [29].<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 Therefore, in applying the twin principles of relevance and necessity, it is also apposite to bear in mind the goal of reducing acrimony between the parties and discouraging them from fighting over every single cent. There is little point in the court hearing the ancillary matters adopting an approach aimed at minimising acrimony when parties have been armed and equipped, at the interlocutory stage, to fight tooth and nail over every last cent. The process of discovery and interrogatories should not be used as a tool in a forensic accounting exercise in a bid to make the other spouse account for every dollar which had been spent: see <em>WXE v WXF</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31617-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 29</a> at [14].</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 The Wife’s application in SUM 2066, however, could rightly be characterised as such an exercise in forensic accounting. She wanted the Husband to explain, and provide documents in support of his explanation, in respect of more than a hundred transactions from his bank accounts and Wechat account. Having looked at the sums involved in these transactions, I did not think it necessary for the Husband to have to answer every single one of them.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 That said, I note that the Husband had indeed provided answers to the majority of the interrogatories which the Wife had posed. He provided an explanation for each transaction and given details of the same. There are some transactions, however, which the Husband had declined to provide an explanation on the basis that the court had not granted the Wife leave to ask for these items in either discovery or interrogatories.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 In the circumstances, I deem it fit to order that the Husband answer those interrogatories posed by the Wife relating to individual transactions involving:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_a"></a>(a) Sums equal to, or more than $5000.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_b"></a>(b) Withdrawals that add up to a sum equal to or more than $5000 over a period of three days.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 In addition to answering the interrogatories set out above (at [12]), the Husband shall also disclose any relevant documents in support of his answers to the interrogatories. If he is unable to provide such documents, he should state his explanation on affidavit and provide any relevant documents in support.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 In addition to the above, it is also ordered that the Husband file his compliance affidavit by 14 October 2024. Costs submissions for both SUM 1809 and 2066 are to be filed by way of letter, limited to a maximum of 3 pages. This shall be done no later than 20 September 2024.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 Finally, it remains for me to thank Mr Quek and Ms Yeo for their assistance.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_1_1" id="Ftn_1">[note: 1]</a></sup>SUM 490/2024 was the Wife’s application for discovery. SUM 488 and 489 of 2024 was the Husband’s application for discovery and interrogatories.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup><https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/news-and-resources/news/news-details/justice-teh-hwee-hwee--keynote-address-delivered-at-the-family-conference-2024></p></div></content></root> | 9df0ea6c217ea8e5f01064143e194bfb21e04dd6 |
Links from other tables
- 11 rows from item_version in fc_judgments_changed