Case Details
- Citation: [2026] SGHCF 4
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2026-02-13
- Judges: Choo Han Teck J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: XNG
- Defendant/Respondent: XNH
- Legal Areas: Family Law — Costs; Family Law — Therapeutic Justice
- Statutes Referenced: None specified
- Cases Cited: [2026] SGHCF 4, Victor Kermit Kiam II v MGN Limited [2002] 2 All ER 242
- Judgment Length: 5 pages, 1,173 words
Summary
This case concerns a dispute over costs following the granting of a Mareva injunction in a family law matter. The applicant wife, XNG, had previously applied to vary a consent order made in 2023, which was dismissed by the court. XNG then applied for a Mareva injunction to prevent her husband, the respondent XNH, from disposing of his assets. The court granted the Mareva injunction, but the parties were unable to agree on the costs. XNG sought indemnity costs of S$40,000, while XNH argued that no costs should be ordered in the interests of "therapeutic justice". The court ultimately ordered XNH to pay standard costs of S$10,000 plus reasonable disbursements to XNG.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The parties, XNG and XNH, first came before the court in HCF/OADTV 4 of 2025, where XNG applied to vary a consent order that had been recorded in 2023. The court dismissed XNG's application in a judgment dated 23 May 2025, but granted her liberty to apply for a Mareva injunction if she had reason to believe that XNH might dispose of his assets to her detriment.
XNG subsequently applied for a Mareva injunction in Summons 266 of 2025 to prevent XNH from disposing of his assets to the value of S$7,564,092.50. The court granted the Mareva injunction in its judgment of 5 February 2026. However, the parties were unable to agree on the costs for this application.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issues in this case were:
- Whether XNG should be awarded indemnity costs for the Mareva injunction application in Summons 266.
- Whether the court should decline to order costs in the interests of "therapeutic justice".
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
On the issue of indemnity costs, the court noted that such costs should only be ordered where a party's conduct is "unreasonable to a high degree" and not merely "wrong or misguided in hindsight". While the court acknowledged that XNH's "repeated payment default has been reprehensible and unacceptable", it did not consider his conduct to warrant the imposition of indemnity costs, as the legal expenses incurred could be adequately addressed through an award of standard costs.
Regarding the concept of "therapeutic justice", the court explained that it is a non-legalistic approach aimed at minimizing acrimony and achieving long-term resolution of disputes. However, the court found that the "time for therapeutic justice had come and gone with limited success" in this case, as the respondent's attempt to change the agreed terms had reopened the old wound, necessitating the "exacting application of legal principles" in Summons 266.
The court acknowledged that in family matters where the parties are not well-to-do, the Family Justice Courts have a wide discretion not to order costs as part of the healing process of therapeutic justice. However, the court held that this was not such a case, as the respondent had abandoned the therapeutic path agreed upon and compelled the applicant into costly litigation, which precluded him from subsequently asking to be spared the costs by invoking the concept of therapeutic justice.
What Was the Outcome?
The court ordered the respondent, XNH, to pay costs of S$10,000 plus reasonable disbursements to the applicant, XNG. The court rejected XNG's request for indemnity costs, finding that the respondent's conduct, while "reprehensible and unacceptable", did not warrant such a punitive measure. The court also rejected the respondent's argument that no costs should be ordered in the interests of therapeutic justice, as the respondent had abandoned the therapeutic path and compelled the applicant into costly litigation.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case provides valuable guidance on the principles governing the award of costs, particularly in the context of family law disputes. The court's analysis of the concept of "therapeutic justice" and its limitations in the present case is noteworthy, as it highlights the importance of the parties' willingness to embrace this approach for it to be effectively applied by the court.
The case also underscores the court's discretion in determining the appropriate level of costs, balancing the need to compensate the successful party for their legal expenses while also considering the broader context and dynamics of the dispute. The court's rejection of indemnity costs, despite the respondent's "reprehensible and unacceptable" conduct, demonstrates the high threshold required for such an award and the court's preference for a more measured approach to costs in family law matters.
Overall, this case serves as a useful reference for legal practitioners navigating the complex interplay between costs, therapeutic justice, and the court's discretion in family law proceedings.
Legislation Referenced
- None specified
Cases Cited
- [2026] SGHCF 4
- Victor Kermit Kiam II v MGN Limited [2002] 2 All ER 242
Source Documents
This article analyses [2026] SGHCF 4 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.