Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGFC 106
- Court: Family Justice Courts of the Republic of Singapore (Family Court)
- Case Number(s): FC/D 192/2024; FC/SUM 648/2025; HCF/DCA 89 of 2025
- Date: 14 Oct 2025 (District Judge’s decision); hearing dates include 5 June 2025 and 30 July 2025
- Judge: District Judge Muhammad Hidhir Bin Abdul Majid
- Applicant/Plaintiff: XSN
- Respondent/Defendant: XSO
- Procedural Posture: Application for committal for breach of a consent order recorded on ancillary matters; leave granted for committal; Plaintiff dismissed at first instance and appealed
- Legal Area(s): Family Law; Breach of Court Order; Committal
- Statutes Referenced: Family Justice Rules 2014 (Rule 647)
- Cases Cited: Not provided in the extract
- Judgment Length: 16 pages, 4,292 words
- Key Orders Sought (Committal Application): (i) finding of contempt; (ii) order to return two dogs “forthwith”; (iii) imprisonment and/or fine if failure to return; (iv) costs of the application to be borne by Defendant
- Key Prior Order: Consent Order recorded on 9 May 2024 on ancillary matters, including an “AM Order” that each party shall retain their respective assets in their own names
- Disputed Property: Two dogs named X and Y
Summary
XSN v XSO ([2025] SGFC 106) concerns an application for committal brought in the Family Justice Courts after the parties’ divorce. The dispute arose from a consent order recorded on 9 May 2024 in the ancillary matters: each party was to retain their respective assets in their own names. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant continually breached that order by refusing to return two dogs (X and Y), which the Plaintiff claimed were her assets and should have been returned to her.
The District Judge dismissed the committal application. The decision also addressed interlocutory evidential issues, including an oral application to strike out portions of the Defendant’s affidavits under Rule 647 of the Family Justice Rules 2014 on the basis that certain paragraphs were scandalous, irrelevant, or otherwise oppressive, and/or contained hearsay or expert-like opinion. The court struck out some parts of the Defendant’s first affidavit but allowed other contested paragraphs to stand, finding them relevant or not confined to expert opinion.
Although the extract provided does not include the full substantive reasoning on ownership and contempt, the judgment’s structure and the court’s approach to evidence and relevance are clear. The court’s ultimate dismissal of the committal application, coupled with an order for costs against the Plaintiff, underscores the high threshold and careful evidential scrutiny required in committal proceedings, particularly where the alleged breach depends on contested factual questions such as who is the beneficial owner of the disputed property.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The parties were married in February 2020 and the marriage was dissolved in February 2024. Following the dissolution, ancillary matters were dealt with in the Family Justice Courts. On 9 May 2024, a Consent Order was recorded on those ancillary matters, including an “AM Order” for the division of the matrimonial flat and other assets. A central term of the AM Order was that “each party shall retain their respective assets in their own names.”
In March 2025, the Plaintiff sought to enforce the consent order through committal proceedings. On 6 March 2025, she applied for leave for an Order of Committal against the Defendant for his continual non-compliance with the AM Order. Leave was granted on 12 March 2025. The Plaintiff’s complaint was specific: the Defendant allegedly failed, neglected, and/or refused to return two dogs, X and Y, to her.
The Plaintiff’s committal application sought several consequential orders. First, she asked the court to find the Defendant in contempt of court for continually breaching the order by refusing to return the dogs. Second, she sought an order requiring the Defendant to return the dogs “forthwith.” Third, she asked for imprisonment and/or a fine if the Defendant failed to return the dogs. Finally, she sought costs of the application to be provided by the Defendant.
In response, the Defendant filed affidavits setting out his position on the dogs’ ownership and his care of them. The Defendant’s evidence included a narrative that he had moved out of the matrimonial home after the sale of the matrimonial property and that he had taken the dogs with him. He also asserted that he was the beneficial owner of the dogs, describing his role in adopting Y and his responsibility for the dogs’ upbringing and care. The Defendant’s affidavits were supported by a witness, “Miss B,” who provided additional account of how the dogs came to be in the Defendant’s possession.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The first legal issue was procedural and evidential: whether parts of the Defendant’s affidavits (and those of Miss B) should be struck out under Rule 647 of the Family Justice Rules 2014. The Plaintiff’s counsel argued that certain paragraphs contained hearsay or expert evidence, and that other portions were irrelevant or otherwise oppressive. The court had to decide which contested statements were admissible and relevant to the committal application.
The second legal issue was substantive: whether the Defendant was in contempt of court for breaching the consent order’s directive that each party retain their respective assets in their own names. In practical terms, the committal application required the Plaintiff to show that the consent order bound the Defendant in a clear and enforceable way, and that the Defendant’s conduct amounted to a breach of that order. Where the alleged breach depends on whether the dogs were the Plaintiff’s “assets,” the court had to assess ownership and possession on the evidence.
A further issue concerned the scope of the court’s enforcement powers in the family context. Committal is a coercive and punitive remedy. The court had to consider whether the evidence supported a finding of contempt to the requisite standard, and whether the Plaintiff’s case was sufficiently established to justify imprisonment and/or a fine, or whether the application should be dismissed.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court began by addressing the oral application to strike out. Under Rule 647 of the Family Justice Rules 2014, the court may strike out any matter in an affidavit that is scandalous, irrelevant, or otherwise oppressive. The court emphasised that the power is discretionary. At the start of the hearing on 5 June 2025, the Plaintiff’s counsel applied to strike out portions of the Defendant’s first affidavit and Miss B’s affidavit on the grounds that they contained hearsay or expert evidence.
The court struck out specific parts of the Defendant’s first affidavit. For example, the last sentence in paragraph 12 (“They acknowledge my messages and did not request me to return the dogs”) and the documents exhibited in TAB 1 were struck out. However, the court did not strike out other sentences within paragraph 12, including the Defendant’s account that the matrimonial home was sold pursuant to the order of court and that he moved out together with the dogs, and that he could not inform the Plaintiff directly because she blocked him on WhatsApp. This indicates the court’s approach: it distinguished between statements that were problematic (e.g., hearsay or otherwise inadmissible) and narrative facts that were relevant to the dispute.
Similarly, the court struck out parts of paragraphs 13 to 15 of the Defendant’s first affidavit. It struck out the whole of paragraph 14, and struck out the whole of paragraph 15 except for a particular sentence. The extract also shows that the Plaintiff sought to strike out paragraphs 16 to 18 and 22 to 26, which included WhatsApp screenshots, adoption-related assertions, and a broader discussion of dogs’ needs. The court’s reasoning on relevance is visible: the judge considered that paragraph 16’s reference to WhatsApp messages between the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s former husband was relevant, and that the paragraphs about dogs’ needs were not confined only to expert evidence.
In relation to paragraph 22, the Plaintiff objected that it contained expert opinion on dogs. The court declined to strike out paragraphs 22 to 26. The judge reasoned that the statements were not confined only to expert opinion and that the Defendant’s concluding remarks (paragraphs 25 and 26) should be allowed to stand. This is a significant evidential point for practitioners: even where a paragraph uses descriptive language that could resemble “expert” commentary, the court may treat it as contextual narrative or personal observation, particularly where it is tied to the party’s account of care and responsibility.
The court also dealt with the Plaintiff’s objection to Miss B’s affidavit. The Plaintiff objected to paragraphs 5 and 8 of Miss B’s affidavit. The judge did not accede to the strike-out application. Paragraph 5 was treated as relevant because it narrated how Y (formerly called “W”) came into the Defendant’s possession. Paragraph 8, although containing statements about beagles’ needs, was treated as based on Miss B’s personal knowledge rather than as expert evidence. The court therefore drew a line between opinion presented as expertise and statements grounded in personal knowledge.
After the strike-out application, the court managed further evidence. The Plaintiff indicated she had additional documents of about 147 pages. The court directed the Plaintiff to file a further affidavit with those documents, and the Defendant filed a reply affidavit. The court also permitted the Plaintiff to raise objections if the Defendant raised any new issue in his reply. This reflects the court’s procedural fairness in committal proceedings, where the parties’ evidence must be complete enough to allow the court to determine whether contempt is made out.
The court then considered the Plaintiff’s attempt to expunge paragraphs 10 to 15 of the Defendant’s reply affidavit on the basis that they were not included in the Defendant’s earlier affidavit. The judge declined to expunge those paragraphs, reasoning that they concerned rebuttal to the Plaintiff’s further affidavit. This again demonstrates a pragmatic approach: rebuttal evidence is often necessary to respond to new material, and the court will not automatically exclude it merely because it was not in the earlier affidavit, provided it is responsive to the new issues raised.
Although the extract truncates the remainder of the judgment, the available portion shows that the substantive committal dispute turned on whether the Defendant had breached the consent order by failing to return the dogs. The Defendant’s evidence asserted that he was the beneficial owner of both dogs and that the Plaintiff’s registration of the dogs in her name did not determine ownership. He argued that ownership should be determined by actions and responsibilities undertaken in caring for the animals, and he claimed he was the primary caregiver. The court’s evidential rulings and its willingness to allow relevant narrative and rebuttal material suggest that the court was prepared to engage with contested factual questions rather than deciding the committal application on narrow procedural grounds alone.
What Was the Outcome?
After hearing the committal application, the District Judge dismissed the Plaintiff’s application. The court ordered costs of $3,500 to be paid by the Plaintiff. The dismissal means the court did not find the Defendant in contempt to the standard required in committal proceedings, and it did not order the return of the dogs or impose imprisonment and/or a fine.
The Plaintiff appealed against the decision. While the extract does not provide the appellate outcome, the first-instance dismissal indicates that the court was not satisfied that the evidential basis for contempt was made out, particularly given the contested nature of ownership and the court’s careful handling of affidavit content and relevance.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is a useful illustration of how committal proceedings in the Family Justice Courts are approached when the alleged breach concerns disputed “assets” under a consent order. The consent order here provided that each party retains their respective assets in their own names. When the “assets” are living animals, the question of ownership and possession can become fact-intensive and may not be resolved solely by registration or documentary labels. Practitioners should note that courts may look beyond formalities to the substance of care, responsibility, and beneficial ownership.
From an evidential standpoint, XSN v XSO also demonstrates the practical operation of Rule 647 of the Family Justice Rules 2014. The court’s selective striking out shows that not all contested affidavit material will be removed. Instead, the court will assess whether the material is relevant, whether it is grounded in personal knowledge, and whether it crosses into hearsay or impermissible expert-like opinion. This is particularly important in family disputes where parties often rely on WhatsApp messages, screenshots, and witness accounts.
Finally, the case underscores the high stakes of committal. Even where a party alleges “continual non-compliance,” the court will require a sufficiently clear and proven breach. The dismissal and costs order highlight that unsuccessful committal applications can carry financial consequences, and that parties should ensure their evidence is robust and targeted to the elements necessary for contempt.
Legislation Referenced
- Family Justice Rules 2014 (Rule 647)
Cases Cited
- None provided in the extract supplied
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGFC 106 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.