Case Details
- Citation: [2015] SGHCF 6
- Title: JBB v JBA
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date of Decision: 29 July 2015
- Judge: Debbie Ong JC
- Coram: Debbie Ong JC
- Case Number: District Court Appeal from the Family Courts No [X]
- Parties: JBB (Appellant / Husband) v JBA (Respondent / Wife)
- Procedural History: Husband appealed against the grant of an interim judgment of divorce; appeal dismissed; costs reserved and later determined by the High Court
- Legal Area: Civil Procedure — Costs in matrimonial proceedings
- Decision Type: Reasons for costs decision following dismissal of appeal
- Key Issue: Whether costs in matrimonial proceedings should follow the event, and how the court’s discretion under the Family Justice Rules 2014 should be exercised
- Orders Made (Costs): Costs of the appeal fixed at $2,000 inclusive of disbursements to the wife; no change to the District Judge’s costs order for the hearing below
- Counsel: Mahadevan Lukshumayeh (S T Chelvan & Company) for the appellant; Sandra Segeram Mahendra (Segeram & Co) for the respondent
- Statutes Referenced: Family Justice Act 2014 (Act 27 of 2014); Family Justice Rules 2014 (S 813/2014) (as referenced in the judgment); Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) (for the divorce grounds context)
- Cases Cited: [1996] SGHC 206; [2010] SGHC 148; [2010] SGHC 255; [2011] SGHC 138; [2012] SGCA 3; [2012] SGHC 213; [2013] SGHC 228; [2013] SGHC 283; [2014] SGHC 112; [2014] SGHC 184
- Judgment Length: 10 pages, 5,837 words
Summary
JBB v JBA [2015] SGHCF 6 concerned the High Court’s decision on costs arising from a matrimonial appeal. The husband’s appeal against the grant of an interim judgment of divorce had already been dismissed. The court then reserved and later delivered reasons on costs, awarding the wife costs of the appeal fixed at $2,000 inclusive of disbursements. The High Court’s central task was to explain how the court should exercise its discretion on costs in matrimonial proceedings under the Family Justice Rules 2014 (“FJR”), and whether the general principle that “costs follow the event” should apply in family cases.
The court reaffirmed that costs are always discretionary, even where the general rule is that costs follow the event. It also clarified that matrimonial cases do not justify a blanket departure from the indemnity-based cost-shifting rationale. Instead, the court must consider the FJR’s express framework, including the conduct of the parties, the reasonableness of positions taken, and other rule-based considerations. On the facts, the wife was the successful party in the appeal, and there was no sufficient basis to disturb the District Judge’s approach to costs below.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The parties were married in Singapore on 17 November 1994. In October 2012, the wife commenced divorce proceedings on the basis that the parties had lived apart for a continuous period of at least four years immediately preceding the filing of the writ. This ground was pleaded under s 95(3)(e) of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed). The husband contested the divorce, and the matter proceeded to a defended hearing.
In May 2013, the wife amended her writ to rely on an alternative ground: that the husband had behaved in such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with him. This amendment was pleaded under s 95(3)(b) of the Women’s Charter. The husband filed a defence to contest the wife’s case on this amended basis as well. The litigation therefore involved contested issues on both the original and amended grounds.
The hearing in the Family Courts lasted several days. In October 2014, the District Judge granted an interim judgment of divorce. Importantly for the later costs dispute, the District Judge ordered that parties bear their own costs. The husband appealed against the grant of the interim judgment of divorce.
In the High Court, the husband’s appeal was dismissed. The High Court then reserved judgment on costs because the parties’ submissions were substantial and were argued with intensity. After considering the submissions, the High Court awarded the wife costs of the appeal fixed at $2,000 inclusive of disbursements. The wife had also sought costs for the hearing below, but the High Court did not disturb the District Judge’s “no order as to costs” outcome for that stage.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The first legal issue was whether, in matrimonial proceedings, the court should generally order “no order as to costs” or whether the general principle that costs follow the event should apply. The husband argued for a matrimonial-specific approach: that there should generally be no order as to costs in family cases. The wife argued the opposite: that costs should follow the event and that there was no reason for a different approach in matrimonial proceedings.
The second issue concerned the proper scope and exercise of the court’s discretion on costs under the Family Justice Act 2014 and the FJR. The court had to determine how the FJR’s rule that costs should follow the event (subject to exceptions) interacts with the broader discretionary nature of costs awards, and how the court should weigh factors such as party conduct, reasonableness, and the extent to which proceedings were protracted or complicated.
A further issue was whether the High Court should interfere with the District Judge’s costs order for the hearing below. Even though the High Court awarded costs for the appeal, it had to decide whether it was appropriate to revisit the earlier “bear own costs” order, particularly given that the wife had asked for costs at first instance.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The High Court began by situating the costs decision within the general principles of Singapore costs law. It emphasised that the power to award costs is fundamentally discretionary. While the general principle is that costs follow the event, the court’s overriding concern is to achieve the fairest allocation of costs in the circumstances. This approach was supported by the Court of Appeal’s articulation in Aurol Anthony Sabastian v Sembcorp Marine Ltd [2013] 2 SLR 246, where the court explained that the discretion is wide and not confined to the litigation outcome alone.
The court also drew on subsequent High Court reasoning that it is misleading to treat “costs follow the event” as an inflexible rule requiring costs to always be awarded to the successful party. In BMG v BMH [2014] SGHC 112, the court observed that the principle is a guiding one, but costs remain “first and foremost” within the court’s discretion. The High Court further referenced the policy rationale for costs shifting: the indemnity principle is designed not merely to compensate but to enhance access to justice, suppress parasitic litigation, and promote finality. This policy framing matters in matrimonial cases because it explains why costs rules exist even where family disputes involve sensitive and personal issues.
Having established the general costs framework, the High Court turned to the specific matrimonial costs regime under the FJR. It noted that the Family Justice Courts have “full power” to determine costs, subject to express provisions of written law and the FJR. The FJR contains an express “follow the event” rule: costs should follow the event unless the court considers that, in the circumstances, some other order should be made as to the whole or any part of the costs. The court then highlighted the FJR’s additional considerations, which include (among others) the conduct of the parties, conduct in attempts to resolve by mediation or other dispute resolution, compliance with pre-action protocols or practice directions, failure to establish claims or issues that unnecessarily protracted or added to costs, and any unreasonable or improper acts or omissions.
Crucially, the High Court observed that these FJR considerations relate to conduct in the legal proceedings. This means that matrimonial costs are not decided by a blanket rule of “no order as to costs” but by a structured discretion that requires attention to how parties litigated. The court’s analysis therefore rejected the husband’s attempt to constitutionalise a general matrimonial exception to costs-follow-the-event. Instead, the court treated matrimonial proceedings as governed by the same disciplined costs framework, albeit applied with sensitivity to the family context and the FJR’s explicit factors.
The High Court then discussed earlier Court of Appeal guidance from the 1990s on costs in matrimonial proceedings, particularly Shi Fang v Koh Pee Huat [1996] 1 SLR(R) 906 and Tham Khai Meng v Nam Wen Jet Bernadette [1997] 1 SLR(R) 336. In Shi Fang, the Court of Appeal held that there was no reason why the wife should not be entitled to full costs of the divorce petition hearing, and that ancillary matters were a continuation or part of the divorce petition hearing, so the wife should also be entitled to costs of those proceedings. In Bernadette, the Court of Appeal similarly reasoned that ancillary matters are part of or a continuation of the divorce petition hearing, and therefore the same costs order should follow at the ancillary stage unless the successful party acted unreasonably or for other good reasons.
The High Court’s reading of these authorities was that they articulated no more than the general principle that costs should follow the event, with the “event” referring to the grant of the divorce judgment (or interim judgment, in the procedural context). The court suggested that some later practice had incorrectly treated ancillary matters in isolation when deciding costs. This historical guidance reinforced the High Court’s view that costs should be aligned with the substantive success in the proceedings, subject to the court’s discretion and any conduct-based exceptions.
Applying these principles to the case before it, the High Court had already dismissed the husband’s appeal against the interim judgment of divorce. The wife was therefore the successful party in the appeal. In the absence of any compelling conduct-based reason to depart from the FJR’s follow-the-event approach, the court awarded the wife costs of the appeal. The court also declined to disturb the District Judge’s costs order for the hearing below, indicating that the earlier “bear own costs” outcome was not, in the High Court’s view, sufficiently erroneous or unjust to warrant interference.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court ordered that the husband pay the wife costs of the appeal fixed at $2,000 inclusive of disbursements. This reflected the wife’s success in resisting the appeal against the interim judgment of divorce. The award was limited to the appeal stage, consistent with the court’s decision not to disturb the District Judge’s earlier costs order.
As to the hearing below, the wife had asked for costs of that stage. The High Court did not disturb the District Judge’s order that parties bear their own costs. The practical effect is that the wife recovered costs only for the appeal, while each party remained responsible for their own costs at first instance.
Why Does This Case Matter?
JBB v JBA is useful for practitioners because it provides a clear, structured explanation of how Singapore courts approach costs in matrimonial proceedings after the introduction of the Family Justice Rules 2014. It confirms that matrimonial litigation does not automatically justify a departure from the general costs-follow-the-event principle. Instead, the court must apply the FJR’s express framework, which preserves discretion but requires consideration of specified factors, particularly the conduct of parties and the reasonableness of positions taken.
The decision also helps clarify the relationship between older Court of Appeal guidance and the modern rule-based regime. By reading Shi Fang and Bernadette as reinforcing the general follow-the-event principle (rather than establishing a special matrimonial “no costs” norm), the High Court aligns matrimonial costs with the broader indemnity and access-to-justice rationale underpinning costs shifting in civil litigation.
For litigators, the case signals that arguments for “no order as to costs” in family matters should be anchored in the FJR’s conduct-based considerations and the circumstances of the case, rather than relying on a generalized proposition that matrimonial disputes should be treated differently. It also illustrates that even where a party succeeds on appeal, the court may still decline to revisit first-instance costs depending on the fairness of the earlier order and the overall litigation conduct.
Legislation Referenced
- Family Justice Act 2014 (Act 27 of 2014), including s 3 (composition of Family Justice Courts) and the framework for costs discretion
- Family Justice Rules 2014 (S 813/2014), including r 851(2), r 852(2), r 854, r 856, and r 857
- Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed), including s 95(3)(e) and s 95(3)(b) (divorce grounds context)
Cases Cited
- Aurol Anthony Sabastian v Sembcorp Marine Ltd [2013] 2 SLR 246
- BMG v BMH [2014] SGHC 112
- Maryani Sadeli v Arjun Permanand Samtani and another and other appeals [2015] 1 SLR 496
- Then Khek Koon and another v Arjun Permanand Samtani and another and other suits [2014] 1 SLR 245
- Shi Fang v Koh Pee Huat [1996] 1 SLR(R) 906
- Tham Khai Meng v Nam Wen Jet Bernadette [1997] 1 SLR(R) 336
- [1996] SGHC 206
- [2010] SGHC 148
- [2010] SGHC 255
- [2011] SGHC 138
- [2012] SGCA 3
- [2012] SGHC 213
- [2013] SGHC 228
- [2013] SGHC 283
- [2014] SGHC 112
- [2014] SGHC 184
Source Documents
This article analyses [2015] SGHCF 6 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.