Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGHCF 46
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2025-08-07
- Judges: Choo Han Teck J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: WVD and others
- Defendant/Respondent: WUR and others
- Legal Areas: Civil Procedure — Costs
- Statutes Referenced: C of the Family Justice Act 2014, Family Justice Act, Family Justice Act 2014, State Courts Act, State Courts Act 1970, Supreme Court of Judicature Act, Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969
- Cases Cited: [2023] SGHC 286, [2024] SGFC 13, [2025] SGHCF 46
- Judgment Length: 7 pages, 1,631 words
Summary
In this case, the High Court of Singapore considered whether it has the power to order instalment payments for a costs order made against the applicants. The applicants, who were the losing parties in a previous probate case, applied to the High Court to pay the costs order in instalments. The respondents objected, arguing that the High Court lacks the statutory power to make such an order. The High Court ultimately held that it has the inherent power to order instalment payments in appropriate cases, and granted the applicants' application on the basis that enforcing the costs order as a lump sum payment would likely impoverish them.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The applicants, WVD, WVE, and WVF, were the losing parties in a previous probate case, FC/S 1/2020, where the District Judge found the first applicant (WVD) in breach of his fiduciary duties as the executor and trustee of his late mother's estate. The District Judge had also directed WVD to produce the accounts of the deceased's estate.
Dissatisfied with the District Judge's decision, the applicants wanted to appeal but were out of time. They then filed an application, HCF/OSP 6/2024, for an extension of time to file an application for leave to file a notice of appeal out of time. The High Court dismissed their application on 6 March 2025 and ordered costs against them, with the first applicant to pay $5,000, the second applicant to pay $1,500, and the litigation representative of the third applicant to pay $1,500.
The applicants now apply, by HCF/SUM 116/2025, for permission to pay the costs in instalments. The respondents, WUR and others, objected to the application.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issues in this case were:
- Whether the High Court has the power to order instalment payments for a costs order, or if this power is limited to the State Courts and Family Courts under the State Courts Act and Family Justice Act respectively.
- Whether the applicants have demonstrated sufficient financial hardship to justify an order for instalment payments.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
On the first issue, the High Court acknowledged that the power to order instalment payments is expressly conferred on the State Courts and Family Courts by the State Courts Act and Family Justice Act, but is not explicitly granted to the High Court. However, the High Court reasoned that this does not mean the High Court lacks the inherent power to make such orders.
The High Court relied on the principle of constitutional supremacy and the High Court's supervisory and revisionary powers over the Family Courts under the Family Justice Act and Supreme Court of Judicature Act. The High Court also drew an analogy to the common law principle that superior courts enjoy the same immunity from suit as lower courts, even in the absence of an express statutory provision.
Furthermore, the High Court cited academic commentary and a historical Malayan case, Phan Pow v Tuck Lee Mining & Co, to support the view that courts have an inherent power to order instalment payments, even where express statutory provisions are absent.
On the second issue, the High Court examined the applicants' financial circumstances. The High Court found that the applicants, who are immediate family members, do not have the means to pay the costs order in a lump sum. The first applicant is 64 years old and unemployed, the second applicant is 23 and unemployed, and the litigation representative of the third applicant has two jobs but a relatively low income. The High Court concluded that enforcing the costs order as a lump sum payment would likely impoverish the applicants, whereas allowing instalment payments would better ensure the respondents recover their costs.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court granted the applicants' application to pay the total costs debt of $8,000 by instalments of $500 per month. However, the High Court ordered that the instalment plan must commence on the 15th day of the month of the judgment, and that any default in payment, even by a day, would result in the entire balance becoming due and payable within seven days, allowing the respondents to enforce the balance of the judgment debt.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for several reasons:
- It clarifies that the High Court has the inherent power to order instalment payments for costs orders, even though this power is not expressly granted in the relevant statutes. This expands the remedies available to litigants in the High Court.
- The decision provides guidance on the circumstances in which the High Court may exercise its inherent power to order instalment payments, namely where enforcing the order as a lump sum would likely impoverish the judgment debtor and deprive them of their means of livelihood.
- The case highlights the importance of balancing the rights of judgment creditors to receive their entitlements under a court order, and the need to avoid undue hardship to judgment debtors.
- The judgment also demonstrates the High Court's willingness to take a pragmatic and flexible approach to ensuring the just resolution of disputes, even where the statutory framework may not explicitly provide for a particular remedy.
Legislation Referenced
- C of the Family Justice Act 2014
- Family Justice Act
- Family Justice Act 2014
- State Courts Act
- State Courts Act 1970
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969
Cases Cited
- [2023] SGHC 286
- [2024] SGFC 13
- [2025] SGHCF 46
- AHQ v Attorney-General and another appeal [2015] 4 SLR 760
- Phan Pow v Tuck Lee Mining & Co (1959) 25 MLJ 32
- Tan Meow Hiang (trading as Chip Huat) v Ong Kay Yong (trading as Wee Wee Laundry Service) [2023] SGHC 286
- WUR and others v WVD and others [2024] SGFC 13
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGHCF 46 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.