Case Details
- Citation: [2014] SGHC 112
- Title: BMG v BMH
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date of Decision: 09 June 2014
- Judgment Reserved: 9 June 2014
- Judge: Choo Han Teck J
- Case Number: Divorce Transferred No 6149 of 2009
- Coram: Choo Han Teck J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: BMG (wife)
- Defendant/Respondent: BMH (husband)
- Counsel for Plaintiff/Wife: Jimmy Yim SC (Drew & Napier LLC) and Dennis Chua Soon Chai (Dennis Chua & Co)
- Counsel for Defendant/Husband: Tan Yew Cheng (Leong Partnership LLP)
- Legal Area: Civil Procedure — Costs
- Prior Related Judgment: BMG v BMH [2013] SGHC 244 (judgment on division of matrimonial assets and maintenance; costs submissions reserved)
- Judgment Length: 3 pages, 1,473 words
- Statutes Referenced: Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) — specifically O 59 r 3(2)
- Cases Cited: [2013] SGHC 244; [2014] SGHC 112
Summary
BMG v BMH [2014] SGHC 112 is a High Court decision dealing solely with costs following an earlier divorce judgment. The court had previously determined issues of division of matrimonial assets and maintenance in BMG v BMH [2013] SGHC 244, and reserved the question of costs for later submissions. When the parties failed to agree, the wife (BMG) applied for an order that she be awarded costs “plus disbursements”, relying on the general principle that costs follow the event.
The husband (BMH) accepted that costs generally follow the event, but disputed that the wife had obtained a “favourable” outcome. The court agreed with the husband’s broader point: there was no clear winner on the overall numerical outcome, and the wife’s attempt to characterise the result as decisively in her favour was, in the court’s view, strained. The judge emphasised that the “costs follow the event” principle is not absolute; it is subject to the court’s discretion under O 59 r 3(2 of the Rules of Court.
Ultimately, Choo Han Teck J ordered that each party bear its own costs and disbursements, and that the parties share the costs of the reports (including the Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”) report and the accountant’s report). The court also made ancillary directions to ensure the execution of documents necessary to transfer title in Thailand properties, with any costs of that administrative step to be shared.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The underlying dispute arose from divorce proceedings between BMG and BMH. In the earlier judgment dated 13 November 2013 (BMG v BMH [2013] SGHC 244), the High Court addressed two substantive issues: (1) the division of matrimonial assets, and (2) maintenance. The costs question was expressly reserved because the parties were unable to agree on costs after the substantive decision.
In the 2013 proceedings, the parties’ positions on the size of the matrimonial asset pool and the proportion to be awarded to the wife differed significantly. The wife’s case was premised on a larger pool of assets, and she sought a higher percentage share. The court, however, determined a smaller asset pool than the wife had urged, and awarded the wife a proportion that—while numerically similar to the percentage sought—was materially affected by the court’s determination of the asset pool size. This distinction became important later when the wife attempted to argue that she had “won” on the event for costs purposes.
Maintenance was also contested. The wife sought a lump sum maintenance range based on a monthly figure over a longer period, whereas the husband’s position was substantially lower and shorter. The court’s maintenance order granted the wife monthly maintenance of $8,000 for 18 months. The wife characterised this as a victory because the monthly figure was closer to her pleaded $10,800 than to the husband’s $3,500. The court, however, observed that the duration of maintenance was a critical component of the overall outcome, and when the total maintenance over time was considered, the result was numerically closer to the husband’s pleaded case.
After the substantive judgment, the wife relied on a settlement offer made on 29 June 2012. In that offer, the wife proposed that she retain properties in Thailand, each party retain other assets, the husband pay a lump sum of $800,000, and each party bear its own legal costs. The wife argued that the final judgment was close to the terms of her offer, and that the husband’s rejection of the offer should influence the costs outcome. The husband rejected the offer, and the parties proceeded to trial. The costs hearing in 2014 therefore required the court to evaluate not only who “won” but also whether the wife’s settlement offer and the overall numerical outcome justified a departure from the default approach.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The primary legal issue was how costs should be ordered following the 2013 substantive judgment in a divorce case where the court had not found a clear winner. While the general principle is that costs follow the event, the court had to decide whether, in the circumstances, some other order should be made for all or part of the costs under O 59 r 3(2.
A second issue concerned the wife’s attempt to frame the outcome as “favourable” by reference to her settlement offer and the closeness of certain components of the judgment to the offer terms. The court had to consider whether the wife’s offer was genuinely “more favourable” than the final judgment in a way that should affect costs, and whether the wife’s method of comparing totals (including interim maintenance paid after the offer period and the accountant’s report costs) was appropriate.
Finally, the court had to decide the allocation of costs for ancillary matters, including the costs of reports (such as the HSA report and the accountant’s report). The husband suggested that each party should bear its own costs for ancillary matters, with only the expenses of the reports borne by the wife. The court’s task was to determine the appropriate costs order in light of the discretionary framework and the divorce context.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
Choo Han Teck J began by setting the context: the 2014 hearing was not about the merits of division or maintenance, but about costs. The judge recalled that in the 2013 judgment he had reserved costs for later submissions if the parties could not agree. The court therefore approached the matter as a discretionary costs exercise rather than a mechanical application of a “winner takes costs” rule.
On the wife’s submissions, the judge accepted that the general principle that costs follow the event is uncontroversial. However, he rejected the wife’s attempt to treat that principle as if it meant “costs must always follow the event”. The judge anchored this analysis in O 59 r 3(2 of the Rules of Court, which provides that the court shall order costs to follow the event except when it appears to the court that, in the circumstances, some other order should be made as to the whole or any part of the costs. In other words, the default rule is subject to a structured discretion.
The judge then evaluated whether there was a clear “event” in the wife’s favour. He found that the wife’s argument that she had obtained a favourable judgment was based on a strained interpretation. Although the wife pointed to the proportion of assets awarded (30% of the court’s determined asset pool) as matching what she sought, the court noted that the size of the asset pool was significantly lower than what she had claimed. This meant that the overall financial outcome was not as favourable as the wife suggested. The judge therefore treated the wife’s “victory” narrative as incomplete because it ignored the court’s key factual determination on the asset pool.
Similarly, the judge addressed the maintenance comparison. The wife argued that $8,000 monthly maintenance was closer to her pleaded figure than to the husband’s. The court responded that this comparison neglected the duration of the maintenance order. The total maintenance over 18 months was a more meaningful measure, and when viewed as a whole, the court found the outcome numerically closer to the husband’s pleaded case. Importantly, the judge did not frame this as a binary win or loss; rather, he concluded that the overall verdict was closer to the husband’s pleaded case, but not in a way that justified calling the husband the “winner” and ordering costs strictly against the wife.
Turning to the settlement offer, the judge considered the wife’s reliance on the 29 June 2012 offer. The judge agreed that certain elements of the offer and the final judgment were identical: the wife would retain the Thailand properties, and parties would retain whatever assets were considered theirs. However, the judge was not persuaded that the offer was “more favourable” overall in a costs-relevant sense. The wife’s offer included a lump sum of $800,000, while the judgment ordered $434,000 plus maintenance. The wife attempted to bridge the gap by adding interim maintenance paid between the date of the offer and the judgment, and by including the accountant’s report cost as an expense that would not have been necessary if the offer had been accepted.
The court rejected this approach as strained. The judge noted that the very issue before the court included costs, so it was not appropriate to treat the accountant’s report cost as a counterfactual that would not have been incurred. The judge also criticised the wife’s inclusion of interim maintenance paid after the offer period. The husband argued that the offer was only open for four weeks, so it would not be fair to take into account interim maintenance paid after that period. The wife did not cite O 22A of the Rules of Court (which relates to offers and the court’s power to consider them in costs), and the judge observed that her arguments were therefore likely made to persuade the court under its general discretion in O 59 rather than under a specific offer-based costs regime.
In addition, the judge referenced the broader divorce context. While he hesitated to draw a trend from other decisions, he appreciated that courts may aim to minimise further acrimony between parties after judgment in divorce proceedings. An adverse costs order can aggravate the situation by encouraging one party to see itself as the “loser”. This contextual consideration reinforced the judge’s view that a strict “costs follow the event” approach might not be appropriate where the outcome was mixed and where costs could heighten hostility.
Having analysed the competing narratives, the court concluded that there was no clear winner. Even the wife’s settlement offer could not be said to be clearly more favourable than the judgment. On that basis, the judge exercised discretion to order that each party bear its own costs and disbursements, and to share the costs of the reports. This outcome reflects a pragmatic balancing: it avoids penalising either party for a mixed result, while still addressing the report expenses in a neutral manner.
What Was the Outcome?
The court ordered that each party bear its own costs and disbursements. The judge also ordered that the parties share the costs of the reports. This meant that neither party would recover its legal costs from the other, and that the expenses associated with the expert report(s) would be divided between them.
In addition, the judge addressed an administrative follow-up from the substantive judgment: the transfer of title in the Thailand properties. Because the properties were held in the parties’ joint names, the court ordered the defendant to execute any necessary documents to give effect to the orders in the 13 November 2013 judgment. Any costs incurred for this administrative step were to be shared by the parties.
Why Does This Case Matter?
BMG v BMH [2014] SGHC 112 is a useful authority on the discretionary nature of costs orders in Singapore civil procedure, particularly in the divorce context. The case underscores that “costs follow the event” is a starting point, not an inflexible rule. The High Court’s reasoning demonstrates that where the outcome is mixed—such that there is no clear winner—the court may depart from a strict costs-follow-event approach under O 59 r 3(2.
For practitioners, the decision is also instructive on how courts may evaluate settlement offers when costs are sought. The judge’s critique of the wife’s settlement-offer comparison highlights the importance of (a) using the correct procedural framework for offers (including citing the relevant rules, such as O 22A where applicable), and (b) ensuring that any comparison between an offer and the judgment is fair and methodologically sound. Attempting to inflate the “favourability” of an offer by including counterfactual or time-period-inappropriate components may not persuade the court.
Finally, the case reflects a practical and policy-sensitive approach to divorce litigation. The court recognised that costs orders can exacerbate acrimony after judgment. While this does not override the legal principles governing costs, it provides a contextual factor that can influence the exercise of discretion. Lawyers advising clients in matrimonial proceedings should therefore anticipate that the court may be reluctant to impose punitive costs where the substantive outcome is not clearly one-sided.
Legislation Referenced
- Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed), O 59 r 3(2)
- Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed), O 22A (mentioned by the court as not cited by the plaintiff)
Cases Cited
- BMG v BMH [2013] SGHC 244
- BMG v BMH [2014] SGHC 112
Source Documents
This article analyses [2014] SGHC 112 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.