JBB v JBA
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Judge | Debbie Ong JC |
Judgment Date | 29 July 2015 |
Neutral Citation | [2015] SGHCF 6 |
Citation | [2015] SGHCF 6 |
Defendant Counsel | Sandra Segeram Mahendra (Segeram & Co) |
Published date | 07 August 2015 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Mahadevan Lukshumayeh (S T Chelvan & Company) |
Hearing Date | 14 April 2015,06 July 2015,10 April 2015 |
Docket Number | District Court Appeal from the Family Courts No [X] |
Date | 29 July 2015 |
Subject Matter | Civil Procedure-Costs in matrimonial proceedings |
This matter concerned costs in matrimonial proceedings. I had earlier dismissed the husband’s appeal against the grant of an interim judgment of divorce. I decided to reserve judgment on the issue of costs as the submissions on it were relatively substantial and both sides had argued their respective cases rather passionately. Having considered the matter, on 6 July 2015, I awarded costs of the appeal fixed at $2,000, inclusive of disbursements, to the wife. I now give the reasons for my decision as well as my views on the issue of costs in matrimonial proceedings.
Background facts The parties were married in Singapore on 17 November 1994. In October 2012, the wife (“the Wife”) commenced divorce proceedings based on the fact that the parties had lived apart for a continuous period of at least four years immediately preceding the filing of the writ (see s 95(3)(
The hearing lasted a number of days and in October 2014, the district judge (“the District Judge”) granted an interim judgment of divorce and ordered that parties bear their own costs. The Husband appealed against the decision of the District Judge in granting the interim judgment of divorce. I dismissed the appeal.
I proceeded to hear submissions on costs. The parties’ respective submissions can be summarised as follows: the Wife contended that costs should follow the event and there is no reason why there should be a different approach in matrimonial cases, while the Husband argued that there should generally be no order as to costs in matrimonial cases. I reserved judgment to mull over the issue. Having done so, I ordered the Husband to pay the Wife costs of the appeal fixed at $2,000, inclusive of disbursements. The Wife had asked for costs of the hearing below, but I did not disturb the District Judge’s order on costs. I will explain the reasons for my decision below, but before that, I think it would be helpful to state my views on the court’s discretion in the awarding of costs in matrimonial proceedings.
The law on award of costs Costs in general The award of costs is a matter in the court’s discretion. The broad discretion of the courts in relation to costs was reiterated by the Court of Appeal in
In
The rationale underlying the general principle that costs should follow the event has been explained in recent cases. In the decision of the Court of Appeal in
…
[original emphasis in italics, emphasis added in bold italics]
The explanation by Vinodh Coomaraswamy J in
Thus, costs are generally ordered to follow the event because a successful party has had to institute proceedings in order to obtain what he deserved. Since the other party’s conduct necessitated the litigation, it is fair that he bears the costs of the litigation.
Costs in matrimonial proceedings under the Family Justice Rules 2014 (S 813/2014) (“FJR”) The Family Justice Courts (which comprises the Family Division of the High Court, the Family Courts and the Youth Courts (see s 3 of the Family Justice Act 2014 (Act 27 of 2014)) have the “full power” to determine the issue of costs, which is a matter in the discretion of the court, subject to the “express provisions of any written law and of [the FJR]” (see r 851(2) of the FJR). In this regard, r 852(2) of the FJR states that costs should “follow the event” except where the court considers that “in the circumstances of the case some other order should be made as to the whole or any part of the costs”. The FJR further stipulates other considerations that the courts ought to take into account when awarding costs, including:
There have been a number of cases where the issue of costs in matrimonial proceedings was discussed. Two notable Court of Appeal decisions in the 1990s have given guidance to the issue. In
In
To continue reading
Request your trial-
UHB v UHA
...minimise acrimony and discontent between the parties. The effect of such orders is that parties would bear their own costs: see JBB v JBA [2015] SGHCF 6 (at [24]-[26]). In the present case, SUM 2859 was filed before the 26 Apr and 16 Aug 2017 orders were varied by the 28 Aug 2019 orders. As......
-
VWM v VWN
...successful vis-à-vis her original prayers. On that footing, and relying on the observations made by Ong J and Choo J in JBB v JVA [2015] 5 SLR 153 (at [32]) and BMG v BMH [2014] 112 (at [10]) respectively, the defendant was of the view that there be no orders as to costs so as not to increa......
-
UQZ v URA
...ought to be struck out. At this juncture, I should make a brief mention of the decision of the High Court (Family Division) in JBB v JBA [2015] SGHCF 6 where Debbie Ong JC (as she then was) made the following observations (at [18]): The “no-fault” divorce regime recognises that the breakdow......
-
VJL v VGM
...and discovery was undertaken in the proceedings. The award of costs lies in the discretion of the court. It was also stated in JBB v. JBA [2015] SGHCF 6 that the court is free to depart from the guiding principle that costs follow the event (such event being the grant of the interim judgmen......
-
Family Law
...the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts. Entitlement to costs in divorce proceedings, ancillary hearings, and appeals 16.65 In JBB v JBA[2015] 5 SLR 153, the wife had commenced proceedings on the basis that the parties had lived apart for a continuous period of at least four years immediat......