Case Details
- Citation: [2020] SGHCF 6
- Title: VGY v VGZ
- Court: High Court (Family Division)
- Registrar’s Appeal No: 50 of 2019
- Related Proceedings: FC/D 441 of 2017 (Ancillary Matters)
- Date of Decision: 4 March 2020
- Judge: Debbie Ong J
- Parties: VGY (Appellant / Husband) v VGZ (Respondent / Wife)
- Legal Area: Family law; ancillary matters; civil procedure; striking out pleadings/affidavit material
- Procedural Posture: Appeal against a District Judge’s decision striking out portions of the Husband’s 2nd Affidavit of Assets and Means
- Key Statutory/Rules Framework: Family Justice Rules 2014 (FJR), in particular r 89
- Issue on Appeal: Whether the District Judge erred in striking out paragraphs 31, 54, 62, 92, 110, 111 and 120 of the Husband’s 2nd Affidavit of Assets and Means
- Outcome: Appeal dismissed
- Counsel: For the appellant: Sam Hui Min Lisa (Lisa Sam & Company); for the respondent: Khwaja Imran Hamid, Yap En Li and Sudhershen Hariram (Tan Rajah & Cheah)
- Cases Cited: UYQ v UYP [2020] SGCA 3; ANJ v ANK [2015] 4 SLR 1043
Summary
VGY v VGZ [2020] SGHCF 6 is a High Court (Family Division) decision addressing the proper scope and discipline of evidence in Ancillary Matters (“AM”) proceedings, particularly in the context of Affidavits of Assets and Means. The case arose from a Registrar’s appeal against a District Judge’s order striking out specific paragraphs of the Husband’s second Affidavit of Assets and Means (“2AOM”). The High Court, in an ex tempore judgment, dismissed the appeal and upheld the striking out.
The court’s central reasoning was that the impugned paragraphs were not relevant to the issues in the AM proceedings, and that the Family Justice Rules impose limits on the number of affidavits and the admission of further affidavit material. The court also emphasised the Court of Appeal’s guidance that parties should not “rehash” issues or flood the court with excessive detail; instead, they should focus on major details with reasonable accounting rigour. The decision reinforces a no-fault divorce approach and the idea that AM proceedings are not a forum to vent frustrations or litigate personal grievances.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The parties were in the midst of divorce-related ancillary proceedings in the Family Justice Courts. The matter concerned the division of matrimonial assets and maintenance, which are typically determined through AM proceedings. In such proceedings, parties are required to provide financial disclosure through affidavits of assets and means, and they may also provide reply affidavits. The Husband (VGY) filed a second Affidavit of Assets and Means (“2AOM”), which is the focus of the dispute.
The Wife (VGZ) applied to strike out various paragraphs in the Husband’s 2AOM. The District Judge (“DJ”) acceded to the application and struck out specific paragraphs: 31, 54, 62, 92, 110, 111 and 120. The Husband appealed that decision to the High Court, arguing that the DJ had erred in striking out those portions.
The impugned paragraphs covered a range of narrative and personal content. Paragraph 31 described how a former helper stopped working after the Wife moved in, and how the Husband arranged for his parents’ helper to come by once a week to do tasks. Paragraph 54 described the Husband’s efforts during weekdays and his need to rest during weekends, including accompanying the Wife to activities with her extended family. Paragraph 62 related to the Wife selling the Bishan property, noting that the property was eventually sold. Paragraph 92 concerned the Wife not paying a professional cleaner for services rendered. Paragraphs 110 and 111 described the Husband’s medical condition (a growth in the anus) and his continued work despite severe pain. Paragraph 120 stated that the Husband was depressed in 2016 and “felt lousy physically”.
In the High Court’s view, while some of these matters might be emotionally salient or part of the parties’ lived experience during the marriage, they did not meaningfully advance the financial issues the court had to determine in the AM proceedings. The court also observed that the Wife’s affidavit did not contradict the existence of some part-time help, and that there was no dispute that the Bishan property was eventually sold. The court further noted that the Husband’s medical narrative contained “unnecessary graphic detail” and did not connect to the legal framework for contribution analysis in a way that would justify its inclusion.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The legal issue on appeal was narrow but important: whether the District Judge had erred in striking out specific paragraphs of the Husband’s 2AOM. This required the High Court to consider the relevance of the impugned paragraphs to the AM proceedings and the procedural limits governing affidavits in the Family Justice Courts.
A second issue, implicit in the court’s reasoning, concerned the proper approach to evidence and pleadings in family ancillary proceedings. The High Court had to apply the Court of Appeal’s guidance on how parties should present evidence—particularly the need to avoid flooding the court with excessive detail, and the need to focus on major details rather than every conceivable detail. The court also had to consider the effect of r 89 of the Family Justice Rules 2014 (FJR), which structures the number of affidavits and requires leave for further affidavit material beyond the initial affidavit and reply affidavit.
Finally, the decision touched on the broader policy context of Singapore’s family law regime, including the “no-fault” divorce approach. While the case was not about divorce fault per se, the court used the no-fault framework to explain why AM proceedings should not become a venue for airing grievances or recounting emotionally charged events that do not assist in determining financial consequences.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The High Court began by identifying the precise paragraphs struck out and then assessing their relevance to the AM issues. The court noted that the AM proceedings were concerned with the division of matrimonial assets and maintenance, which require evidence relevant to contribution analysis and financial circumstances. The court’s approach was therefore functional: it asked whether the impugned paragraphs assisted the court in determining the relevant financial questions, rather than whether they were part of the parties’ narrative.
On relevance, the court found that several paragraphs were either undisputed or tangential. For example, paragraph 31 concerned part-time help and the transition from one helper to another. The court observed that the Wife’s affidavit did not contradict the existence of part-time help. In that context, the court regarded the paragraph as not materially advancing the issues. Similarly, paragraph 62 concerned the Wife selling the Bishan property; the court noted there was no dispute that the property was eventually sold. Where facts are not contested or do not bear on contribution or financial need, the court was reluctant to allow parties to expand the record with additional narrative.
The court was particularly critical of paragraphs 110 and 111, which contained detailed medical descriptions of the Husband’s condition and his continued work despite pain. The court characterised this as “unnecessary graphic detail” and questioned how it was relevant to indirect contribution. The Husband’s counsel analogised the situation to a working mother who works hard and sleeps little, suggesting that the Husband’s continued work despite pain should be treated as an indirect contribution. The High Court rejected this analogy, reasoning that the relevant contribution analysis in AM proceedings focuses on how the spouse’s efforts contributed to the family’s welfare and the acquisition or preservation of assets, and that the Husband’s medical condition narrative did not relate to indirect contribution in the way counsel suggested.
In making this point, the court also referenced a practical evidential concern: in other cases, parties have used evidence of a spouse’s medical condition to argue that the spouse could not have contributed much because the spouse required care rather than providing care. While the court did not state that this would necessarily be the outcome here, it used the observation to illustrate that medical condition evidence can cut against the party seeking to rely on it. The court therefore concluded that the paragraphs did not appear to favour the Husband’s case on indirect contribution, undermining the argument that they were necessary for a just determination.
Beyond relevance, the court anchored its analysis in procedural discipline under the FJR. It highlighted that r 89 permits each party to file an Affidavit of Assets and Means and a reply affidavit, and that any further affidavit requires the court’s leave. The court’s reasoning indicates that the rules are designed to prevent repetitive and escalating disclosure, which can obscure the real issues and waste judicial resources. The court also noted the DJ’s observation that r 89 exists to prevent parties from repeatedly “rehashing issues” due to heightened emotions and acrimony.
The High Court then relied on the Court of Appeal’s guidance in UYQ v UYP [2020] SGCA 3. It quoted the Court of Appeal’s emphasis that parties should focus on major details rather than every conceivable detail, and that there should be “reasonable accounting rigour” that avoids flooding the court with details that obscure rather than illuminate. The court also stressed that parties should not adopt the ANJ v ANK approach in a rigid and calculative manner, and that in extreme situations, sanctions in the form of costs orders may follow. This appellate guidance served as a normative framework for how affidavits should be drafted and used in AM proceedings.
Applying these principles, the High Court observed that the Husband’s 2AOM was more than 100 pages long and began with a personal narrative about his background. The court expressed doubt whether, had the Husband kept broadly to what was relevant in a more concise manner, the Wife would have been inclined to apply for striking out. The court acknowledged that some material not struck out might also be not entirely relevant, but the appeal concerned only the specific paragraphs struck out. The court’s critique was not merely about length; it was about the evidential function of the material and whether it served the court’s task.
Finally, the court placed the dispute within the broader policy of no-fault divorce. It acknowledged that recounting events after a marriage breakdown can be difficult and painful. However, it emphasised that AM proceedings are not a forum to vent frustrations. The court explained that the no-fault regime recognises that alleging “faults” is often not straightforward and that spouses’ actions can influence one another throughout a continuous relationship. Accordingly, parties should focus on addressing the financial consequences of the marriage breakdown. The court also encouraged parties to use therapeutic services to support them emotionally, rather than using the court process to intensify acrimony.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court dismissed the appeal. It upheld the District Judge’s decision striking out paragraphs 31, 54, 62, 92, 110, 111 and 120 of the Husband’s second Affidavit of Assets and Means. The practical effect is that those portions would not form part of the evidential record for the AM proceedings, and the court would proceed to determine division of assets and maintenance based on the remaining admissible evidence.
In dismissing the appeal, the court also reinforced that parties must comply with the evidential and procedural framework governing affidavits, and that courts will discourage irrelevant, repetitive, or emotionally driven material that does not assist in resolving the financial issues before the court.
Why Does This Case Matter?
VGY v VGZ is significant for practitioners because it demonstrates how the Family Division will police the boundaries of relevance and proportionality in affidavit evidence. While parties must provide disclosure and may need to explain context, the court made clear that AM proceedings are not a platform for exhaustive narrative or grievance-driven documentation. The decision therefore serves as a practical reminder that evidence should be tailored to the legal issues—contribution, financial needs, and the relevant circumstances for asset division and maintenance.
The case also underscores the procedural importance of r 89 of the FJR. Even where parties have already filed an affidavit and a reply affidavit, further affidavit material requires leave. The court’s reasoning suggests that, beyond formal leave requirements, the substance of additional material will be scrutinised for relevance and for whether it amounts to “rehashing” or flooding the court with detail. This is particularly relevant in high-conflict divorces where parties may be tempted to expand the record with personal accounts.
From a precedent and guidance perspective, the High Court’s reliance on UYQ v UYP [2020] SGCA 3 gives practitioners a clear direction: courts should discourage rigid, calculative approaches that treat disclosure as an exercise in exhaustive enumeration. Instead, parties should adopt a disciplined approach that balances reasonable accounting rigour with concision and relevance. The decision also aligns with the policy of no-fault divorce, reinforcing that courts will not reward evidence that primarily serves to vent emotions rather than assist in financial adjudication.
Legislation Referenced
- Family Justice Rules 2014 (S 813/2014), r 89
Cases Cited
- UYQ v UYP [2020] SGCA 3
- ANJ v ANK [2015] 4 SLR 1043
- VGY v VGZ [2020] SGHCF 6 (this decision)
Source Documents
This article analyses [2020] 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.