XHG v XHH [2025] SGHCF 13

Case Details

• Citation: [2025] SGHCF 13
• Court: Family Justice Courts of the Republic of Singapore (General Division of the High Court (Family Division))
• Decision Date: 14 January 2025
• Coram: Choo Han Teck J
• Case Number: Divorce (Transferred) No 706 of 2022
• Hearing Date(s): 4 February 2025
• Claimants / Plaintiffs: XHG (Wife)
• Respondent / Defendant: XHH (Husband)
• Counsel for Claimants: [None recorded in extracted metadata]
• Counsel for Respondent: Kyle Leslie Sim and Florence Ting (Engarde Legal LLC)
• Practice Areas: Family Law — Costs; Ancillary Matters

Summary

The judgment in XHG v XHH [2025] SGHCF 13 represents a significant judicial exposition on the principles governing costs in family proceedings, specifically following the resolution of ancillary matters. The primary dispute before Choo Han Teck J concerned the quantification and basis of costs after the court had delivered its substantive judgment on 14 January 2025. This case is particularly notable for its treatment of the "Offer to Settle" (OTS) mechanism under the Family Justice Rules 2014 and the court's robust stance against parties who fail to adhere to the duty of full and frank disclosure.

The court was tasked with determining whether the Wife was entitled to indemnity costs based on an OTS served on 27 June 2024. The Wife contended that the eventual judgment was more favourable to her than the terms of her offer, thereby triggering the cost-shifting provisions of the rules. However, the court's analysis delved into the procedural nuances of how an OTS interacts with subsequent consent orders. The court ultimately found that the Wife’s OTS had expired or was superseded by a consent order dated 31 October 2024, which had been reached based on the Husband’s competing OTS. This finding underscores the necessity for practitioners to actively renew or maintain offers if they intend to rely on them for cost advantages following a partial settlement.

Furthermore, the judgment reinforces the paramount importance of the duty of full and frank disclosure in matrimonial proceedings. Choo Han Teck J highlighted the Husband’s "catch-me-if-you-can" attitude, specifically regarding the late filing of his fifth affidavit of assets and means (AOM5). By ordering indemnity costs against the Husband for the Wife’s expenses in responding to this specific affidavit, the court sent a clear signal that evasive conduct and procedural delinquency will be met with financial consequences. The court’s reasoning draws heavily from the rationale that such conduct unnecessarily increases the length and cost of litigation while exacerbating emotional strain on the family unit.

Ultimately, the court exercised its broad discretion to fix costs rather than ordering taxation, aiming to prevent further escalation of legal fees. The decision balances the Wife’s partial success and the Husband’s procedural misconduct against the Wife’s own lack of complete transparency in certain financial disclosures. This case serves as a cautionary tale for practitioners regarding the strategic management of offers to settle and the non-negotiable nature of disclosure obligations in the Family Justice Courts.

Timeline of Events

1. 2022: Commencement of Divorce (Transferred) No 706 of 2022 between XHG (Wife) and XHH (Husband).
2. 27 June 2024: The Wife serves an offer to settle (“the Wife’s OTS”) on the Husband, seeking to resolve the ancillary matters.
3. 27 September 2024: The Husband serves his own offer to settle (“the Husband’s OTS”) on the Wife.
4. 31 October 2024: The parties enter into a consent order regarding custody, care and control, and access to the children. This order was based on the terms set out in the Husband’s OTS.
5. 28 November 2024: A significant date in the procedural timeline leading to the final ancillary hearing, as noted in the evidence record.
6. 29 November 2024: Further procedural developments or filings as recorded in the judgment’s chronological data.
7. 14 January 2025: Choo Han Teck J delivers the substantive judgment on the ancillary matters. The court orders costs against the Husband on a standard basis generally, but on an indemnity basis for the costs related to the Husband’s fifth affidavit of assets and means (AOM5).
8. 4 February 2025: The court conducts a hearing specifically to determine the quantification of costs following the parties' written submissions.
9. 14 February 2025: The court issues the final costs determination as reflected in the neutral citation [2025] SGHCF 13.

What Were the Facts of This Case?

The proceedings originated from a divorce between XHG (the Wife) and XHH (the Husband). Following the grant of the interim judgment of divorce, the parties proceeded to the ancillary matters stage, which involved the division of matrimonial assets, maintenance for the Wife and children, and arrangements for the children’s custody, care, and control. The substantive issues were heard and decided by Choo Han Teck J, who delivered his judgment on 14 January 2025. In that judgment, the court made specific orders regarding the division of assets and maintenance, and crucially, made a preliminary order that the Husband should bear the costs of the ancillary proceedings.

A central factual dispute in the costs phase concerned the effect of competing Offers to Settle (OTS). On 27 June 2024, the Wife served an OTS. Three months later, on 27 September 2024, the Husband served his own OTS. The parties managed to reach a partial settlement on 31 October 2024, entering into a consent order that resolved the issues of custody, care and control, and access. This consent order was explicitly based on the terms proposed in the Husband’s OTS. The remaining issues—maintenance and the division of matrimonial assets—proceeded to a contested hearing.

The Wife’s position was that her OTS of 27 June 2024 remained valid and that the final judgment delivered on 14 January 2025 was more favourable to her than the terms she had offered. On this basis, she sought standard costs up to the date of her offer and indemnity costs thereafter, invoking the cost-shifting mechanisms of the Family Justice Rules. She argued that the Husband’s refusal to accept her offer necessitated the continued litigation of the financial issues.

Parallel to the OTS dispute was the issue of the Husband’s conduct during the discovery and disclosure phase. The Husband had filed a fifth affidavit of assets and means (AOM5) late in the proceedings. The Wife contended that this affidavit contained information that should have been disclosed much earlier. The court had already noted in its 14 January 2025 judgment that the Husband’s failure to provide full and frank disclosure earlier in the process justified an award of indemnity costs specifically for the work the Wife had to undertake to respond to AOM5. The Wife sought a significant sum for these costs, highlighting the complexity and volume of the financial documents involved.

The financial stakes were considerable. The Wife’s submissions on costs referred to various sums, including a claim for $40,000 and $50,000 in different contexts of the litigation, and a total costs claim that the court ultimately found to be excessive. The Husband, represented by Engarde Legal LLC, resisted these claims, arguing that the Wife’s OTS had expired and that her own conduct during the proceedings—including her own alleged failures in disclosure—should mitigate the costs awarded against him. The court was therefore required to sift through the voluminous correspondence and the history of the parties' disclosures to arrive at a fair quantification of costs.

What Were the Key Legal Issues?

The determination of costs in this matter hinged on three primary legal issues, each involving the application of the Family Justice Rules 2014 and established common law principles in matrimonial litigation.

• The Application of Rule 454 of the Family Justice Rules 2014: The court had to determine whether the Wife’s OTS dated 27 June 2024 satisfied the requirements of Rule 454(1) and (2). Specifically, the issue was whether the offer had "expired" or been "withdrawn" within the meaning of the rules when the parties entered into a consent order on 31 October 2024 that adopted the Husband's terms on certain issues.
• The Scope of the Duty of Full and Frank Disclosure: A critical issue was the extent to which the Husband’s late disclosure in AOM5 constituted a breach of the duty of full and frank disclosure. The court needed to decide if this breach was sufficiently serious to warrant the exceptional order of indemnity costs, and how such costs should be quantified in the context of family proceedings where the "catch-me-if-you-can" attitude is strictly discouraged.
• The Exercise of Judicial Discretion in Fixing Costs: Given the court's desire to avoid the further expense of taxation, the legal issue was how the court should exercise its discretion to "fix" costs. This involved balancing the Wife's partial success and the Husband's misconduct against the overall conduct of both parties, including the Wife's own disclosure record, to arrive at a sum that was "proportionate and just."

How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?

The court’s analysis began with a fundamental restatement of the nature of costs in family law. Choo Han Teck J observed that unlike civil litigation where costs generally "follow the event," family disputes require a more nuanced approach. At [7], the court noted:

"Costs orders are therefore much more finely balanced in family disputes. Hence, the court may in its discretion, decline to order costs."

This discretion is guided by the overarching objective of the Family Justice Courts to deal with matters justly and to minimize the emotional and financial strain on the family.

The Offer to Settle and Rule 454

The court then turned to the Wife’s reliance on Rule 454 of the Family Justice Rules 2014 (FJR 2014). The Wife argued that because she obtained a judgment not less favourable than her OTS, she was entitled to indemnity costs from the date of the offer. The court scrutinized the procedural history, noting that the parties had settled the issues of custody, care and control, and access via a consent order on 31 October 2024. Crucially, this settlement was based on the Husband’s OTS, not the Wife’s.

The court reasoned that when the Wife agreed to the consent order on the Husband’s terms, her own OTS—which presumably contained different terms for those same issues—effectively expired or was superseded. Choo Han Teck J held that if the Wife intended for the remaining financial terms of her OTS to remain "live" and carry cost consequences, she was obligated to renew or clarify the status of her offer following the partial settlement. Since she did not, the court found that the Wife could not invoke the mandatory cost-shifting provisions of Rule 454. The court emphasized that the OTS mechanism is designed to encourage settlement, and its technical requirements must be strictly observed to trigger indemnity consequences.

The Duty of Full and Frank Disclosure

The most significant part of the court’s analysis concerned the Husband’s conduct regarding disclosure. The court reaffirmed that parties in ancillary matters are under a strict duty of full and frank disclosure, citing USB v USA [2020] 2 SLR 588 at [46] and BG v BF [2007] 3 SLR(R) 233 at [52].

The court relied heavily on the rationale set out in TVJ v TVK [2017] SGHCF 1 at [66], quoting it at length to describe the "catch-me-if-you-can" attitude that plagues some matrimonial litigations. The court noted that such conduct leads to an "inevitable sequence of requests for documents, interrogatories and disclosure by further affidavits," which serves only to increase costs and emotional conflict. At [12], the court stated:

"Parties should not be encouraged to be evasive in the hope that they may not be found out."

In applying this to the facts, the court found that the Husband’s AOM5 was a clear instance of late disclosure of material information. While the Husband argued that the information was eventually provided, the court held that the timing and the necessity of the Wife having to extract this information through persistent litigation justified the earlier order for indemnity costs. This was a punitive and compensatory measure intended to address the Husband’s procedural delinquency.

Quantification and Conduct

In quantifying the costs, the court rejected the Wife’s claim for a high amount of costs. The court observed that the Wife herself had not been entirely forthright in her disclosures. Specifically, the court noted that the Wife had failed to disclose certain financial information until late in the day, which mirrored some of the Husband's own failings. This "mutual" lack of transparency influenced the court's decision to fix the standard costs at a relatively modest sum of $5,000.

The court also dismissed the Wife’s attempts to claim costs for "emotional and reputational harm." Choo Han Teck J clarified that costs in ancillary matters are intended to cover the legal expenses of the litigation itself, not to serve as damages for personal grievances or unproven allegations of misconduct outside the scope of the financial and custodial issues. The court’s role in fixing costs is to look at the "pre-trial work and voluminous correspondence" and determine what was reasonably necessary for the adjudication of the issues.

What Was the Outcome?

The court, having considered the written submissions and the conduct of the parties throughout the ancillary proceedings, declined to order the taxation of costs and instead proceeded to fix the quantum. The operative order of the court is found at paragraph 17:

"I order the Husband to pay costs of the ancillary proceedings, on a standard basis, fixed at S$5,000, and $2,000 on an indemnity basis for the Wife’s costs of responding to AOM5."

The disposition can be broken down as follows:

• Standard Costs: The Husband was ordered to pay $5,000 to the Wife. This sum was intended to cover the general work done for the ancillary matters hearing. The court kept this figure low to reflect the fact that both parties had contributed to the complexity of the case and that the Wife had not been perfectly transparent in her own disclosures.
• Indemnity Costs: The Husband was ordered to pay an additional $2,000 on an indemnity basis. This was specifically earmarked for the Wife’s costs incurred in responding to the Husband’s fifth affidavit of assets and means (AOM5). This award was a direct consequence of the Husband’s failure to provide full and frank disclosure in a timely manner.
• Rejection of Rule 454 Claims: The court explicitly rejected the Wife’s claim for indemnity costs based on her Offer to Settle dated 27 June 2024, finding that the offer had effectively expired upon the entry of the consent order on 31 October 2024.
• Finality: By fixing the costs at a total of $7,000, the court sought to bring an immediate end to the litigation, avoiding the "further costs" and time that would be required for a formal taxation process before the Registrar.

Why Does This Case Matter?

The decision in XHG v XHH is a significant addition to the jurisprudence on costs in the Singapore Family Justice Courts for several reasons. First, it provides a practical illustration of the limitations of the Offer to Settle (OTS) mechanism in the context of multi-issue matrimonial litigation. Practitioners often serve an OTS early in the hope of securing indemnity costs later. This case clarifies that if a partial settlement is reached on terms from a different offer, the original offer may be deemed to have expired. This places a burden on the offering party to proactively manage their OTS—either by renewing it, amending it, or explicitly stating that the remaining terms remain open for acceptance. This prevents the "zombie offer" problem where a party tries to claim indemnity costs based on an offer that was effectively abandoned during negotiations.

Second, the judgment reinforces the court's intolerance for the "catch-me-if-you-can" approach to disclosure. By citing TVJ v TVK, Choo Han Teck J emphasized that the duty of full and frank disclosure is not merely a procedural rule but a foundational requirement for the court to exercise its statutory discretion under the Women's Charter. The award of indemnity costs for the AOM5 response serves as a clear precedent: even if a party eventually discloses the truth, the fact that they forced the other side to "hunt" for it will result in financial penalties. This is a vital tool for practitioners to use when dealing with evasive opponents.

Third, the case highlights the court's willingness to "fix" costs rather than order taxation in family matters. This reflects a broader judicial policy of proportionality. In many divorce cases, the costs of taxing the costs can themselves become a significant burden. By taking a "rough and ready" but informed approach to fixing costs based on the parties' submissions, the court prioritizes the preservation of the matrimonial pool and the finality of the dispute. The court’s refusal to award the high sums claimed by the Wife also serves as a reminder that the court will scrutinize the reasonableness of the work done, especially where both parties have been less than perfect in their conduct.

Finally, the case clarifies that costs in ancillary matters are not a forum for seeking "damages" for emotional distress or reputational harm. Matrimonial litigation is often high-conflict, and parties frequently attempt to use the costs stage to punish each other for perceived moral failings. Choo Han Teck J’s firm rejection of these elements ensures that costs remain focused on the actual legal work required to resolve the financial and custodial issues, maintaining the integrity of the cost-shifting regime.

Practice Pointers

• Active Management of Offers to Settle: Do not assume an OTS remains valid for cost-shifting purposes after a partial settlement. If you reach a consent order on some issues (e.g., children) based on the opponent's terms, you must explicitly renew or serve a fresh OTS for the remaining issues (e.g., assets) if you wish to preserve the right to indemnity costs under Rule 454 FJR 2014.
• The Disclosure Penalty: Advise clients that late disclosure, even if "voluntary" before the hearing, can trigger indemnity costs. The court focuses on the necessity of the work created by the delay. The "catch-me-if-you-can" attitude is a high-risk strategy that the court will penalize.
• Proportionality in Costs Submissions: When the court asks for submissions to fix costs, avoid inflated claims. The court in this case was unimpressed by voluminous claims and instead looked at the actual pre-trial work. Over-claiming can lead the court to fix a much lower sum as a mark of its disapproval.
• Clean Hands in Disclosure: A party seeking indemnity costs for the other side's non-disclosure should ensure their own disclosure is impeccable. The court in XHG v XHH reduced the Wife's standard costs partly because she had also been less than forthright in her financial disclosures.
• Focus on Litigation Costs, Not Damages: Ensure that costs submissions are grounded in the legal work performed. Do not include claims for emotional distress or reputational harm, as these are irrelevant to the quantification of costs in ancillary matters.
• Use of TVJ v TVK: Practitioners should cite TVJ v TVK [2017] SGHCF 1 when dealing with an opponent who is providing discovery in "drips and drabs." The "catch-me-if-you-can" rationale is a powerful argument for indemnity costs.

Subsequent Treatment

As a decision from early 2025, XHG v XHH [2025] SGHCF 13 is a recent authority. Its primary contribution is the reinforcement of the principles in TVJ v TVK regarding the "catch-me-if-you-can" attitude and the practical application of Rule 454 FJR 2014 in the context of partial settlements. It is likely to be cited in future family law costs disputes where one party attempts to rely on an old OTS after the landscape of the litigation has changed through consent orders. The case follows the established line of authority from the Court of Appeal in USB v USA regarding the duty of disclosure.

Legislation Referenced

• Family Justice Rules 2014: Specifically Rule 454, sub-rules (1) and (2), which govern the cost consequences of Offers to Settle.
• Women’s Charter (Cap 353): The underlying statute governing the court's discretion in ancillary matters and the duty of disclosure.

Cases Cited

• Relied On:
  • TVJ v TVK [2017] SGHCF 1 — Used for the rationale behind the duty of full and frank disclosure and the "catch-me-if-you-can" attitude.
  • USB v USA [2020] 2 SLR 588 — Cited for the principle that parties to ancillary matters are under a duty of full and frank disclosure.
  • BG v BF [2007] 3 SLR(R) 233 — Cited in support of the duty of full and frank disclosure.
• Referred To:
  • [2025] SGHCF 13 — The present judgment.

Source Documents

• Original Judgment (PDF)
• eLitigation Case Summary