Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGHCF 13
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2025-02-14
- Judges: Choo Han Teck J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: XHG
- Defendant/Respondent: XHH
- Legal Areas: Family Law — Costs
- Statutes Referenced: Family Justice Rules 2014
- Cases Cited: [2017] SGHCF 1, [2025] SGHCF 13, USB v USA [2020] 2 SLR 588, BG v BF [2007] 3 SLR(R) 233, TVJ v TVK [2017] SGHCF 1
- Judgment Length: 8 pages, 2,133 words
Summary
In this family law case, the High Court of Singapore considered the issue of costs following the resolution of ancillary matters in a divorce proceeding. The court examined the parties' offers to settle, the Husband's conduct during the proceedings, and the principles governing the award of costs in family disputes. Ultimately, the court ordered the Husband to pay a portion of the Wife's costs on a standard basis, as well as indemnity costs for the Wife's response to the Husband's late-filed affidavit.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
This case arose from a divorce proceeding between the Plaintiff, XHG (the Wife), and the Defendant, XHH (the Husband). On 14 January 2025, the court handed down a judgment on the ancillary matters of the parties' divorce. In that judgment, the court ordered costs against the Husband on a standard basis, except for the costs involved in having to respond to the Husband's fifth affidavit of assets and means (AOM5), for which the court ordered indemnity costs against him.
The court directed the parties to file submissions on the appropriate amount of costs to be awarded, rather than ordering the costs to be taxed. This was to save the parties and the Registrar time and further costs in determining the details of the pre-trial work and voluminous correspondence exchanged.
In her submissions, the Wife disclosed that she had made an offer to settle on 27 June 2024 (the Wife's OTS), and the Husband had made his own offer to settle on 27 September 2024 (the Husband's OTS), which the Wife did not accept due to the unreasonable terms relating to the children's maintenance. The Wife argued that the final decision of the court was less favorable to the Husband than her offer, and therefore she should be awarded standard costs against the Husband up until 27 June 2024, and thereafter, on an indemnity basis.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issues in this case were:
- Whether the Wife was entitled to standard costs up to 27 June 2024 and indemnity costs thereafter, based on her offer to settle.
- Whether the court should order indemnity costs against the Husband for the Wife's costs of responding to the Husband's late-filed AOM5.
- The appropriate amount of costs to be awarded to the Wife, taking into account the parties' conduct and the principles governing costs in family disputes.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court first considered the Wife's reliance on her offer to settle (OTS) as a basis for an award of costs. The court noted that under the Family Justice Rules 2014 (FJR 2014), a plaintiff is entitled to standard costs up to the date the offer was served and indemnity costs thereafter, if the offer is not withdrawn or expired before the disposal of the claim and the plaintiff obtains a judgment not less favorable than the terms of the offer.
However, the court found that the Wife's OTS had expired on 31 October 2024, when the parties entered into a consent order regarding custody, care and control, and access, based on the terms set out in the Husband's OTS. The court held that the Wife should have renewed her OTS if she wished to maintain it, but she did not do so. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no basis to award the Wife indemnity costs from 27 June 2024 onwards.
Next, the court addressed the issue of the indemnity costs ordered against the Husband for the Wife's costs of responding to his late-filed AOM5. The court explained that parties to ancillary matters proceedings in a divorce are under a duty of full and frank disclosure, as established in previous case law. The Husband's failure to disclose certain financial information earlier, which he only provided in the late-filed AOM5, justified the court's order of indemnity costs against him for that aspect of the proceedings.
However, the court found that the Wife's other allegations regarding the Husband's conduct, such as causing her emotional and reputational harm, were unproven and not relevant to the costs of the ancillary matters hearing. The court also noted that the Wife had not been entirely forthright in disclosing certain financial information, which was relevant to the quantum of costs to be awarded.
What Was the Outcome?
Taking all the factors into account, including the parties' costs submissions, the court ordered the Husband to pay costs of the ancillary proceedings on a standard basis, fixed at S$5,000, and an additional S$2,000 on an indemnity basis for the Wife's costs of responding to the Husband's late-filed AOM5.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case provides important guidance on the principles governing the award of costs in family law disputes, particularly in the context of divorce proceedings. The court's analysis highlights the following key points:
- The court has a broad discretion in awarding costs in family proceedings, and a successful litigant may not necessarily recover all or any of the money expended in the court proceedings.
- Parties to ancillary matters proceedings in a divorce are under a duty of full and frank disclosure, and a failure to comply with this duty may result in an order of indemnity costs against the non-disclosing party.
- The court will consider the parties' conduct and the overall fairness of the outcome when determining the appropriate costs order, rather than simply applying the general costs rules.
- Offers to settle made by the parties may be relevant to the costs award, but the court retains the discretion to depart from the general rules if the circumstances warrant it.
This case serves as a reminder to family law practitioners and litigants that the courts will closely scrutinize the parties' conduct and the overall fairness of the outcome when making costs orders in divorce proceedings, rather than simply applying a formulaic approach. Parties must be mindful of their duty of full and frank disclosure and the potential consequences of non-compliance.
Legislation Referenced
- Family Justice Rules 2014
Cases Cited
- [2017] SGHCF 1
- [2025] SGHCF 13
- USB v USA [2020] 2 SLR 588
- BG v BF [2007] 3 SLR(R) 233
- TVJ v TVK [2017] SGHCF 1
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGHCF 13 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.