TDU v TDV

• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Judge: Colin Tan
• Judgment Date: 03 August 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] SGFC 101
• Citation: [2015] SGFC 101
• Hearing Date: 22 April 2015
• Published date: 22 August 2015
• Docket Number: Divorce Suit No 4476 of 2008, Summons No 13049 of 2014
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ms Stephanie Looi (M/s Optimus Law LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Ms Alyssa Lee (M/s Alyssa Lee & Co)
• Subject Matter: Civil procedure,discontinuance

District Judge Colin Tan: 22nd April 2015 Case Conference

At a Case Conference on 22nd April 2015, the Plaintiff’s Counsel sought leave to withdraw SUM 13049 of 2014.

The Defendant’s Counsel stated that she had no objections and also stated that she was asking for costs.

I granted leave to withdraw the Summons in question and directed that the issue of costs was to be adjourned to be dealt with on the date of the ancillary matters hearing when there would be more time.

No objections to my directions were raised by the Defendant’s Counsel.

Subsequently, the Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal stating that he was appealing against the above decision.

Correspondence after the 22nd April 2015 Case Conference

Following the Case Conference on 22nd April 2015, a number of letters were sent to the court by the parties’ solicitors.

On 5th May 2015, the Defendant’s solicitors wrote to ask to extract an order stating that the Plaintiff was to pay to the Defendant costs.

On 6th May 2015, the Plaintiff’s solicitors wrote to the court to state that their records showed that I had directed that the issue of costs was to be dealt with at the ancillary matters hearing.

On 11th May 2015, the Registry replied as follows:

“According to our records, the Order in respect of costs made on 22nd April 2015 was as follows: Issue of costs adjourned to be dealt with on the date of the Ancillary Matters hearing when there will be more time.”

On 12th May 2015, the Defendant’s solicitors wrote to request clarification “that the “issue of costs” stated in the Order made by him on 22 April 2015 refers to the issue of costs to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant for Summons No. 13049/2014.”

On the same day, the Registry replied as follows:

“Your Request has been placed before District Judge Colin Tan, who clarifies that the phrase ‘issue of costs’ refers to all matters concerning costs. This would include deciding which party, if any, is to pay costs as well as the quantum to be paid and any other issues concerning costs that may be relevant to the case in question. As the Order has now been clarified, there will be no hearing fixed for this Request. Thank you.”

On 13th May 2015, the Defendant’s solicitors wrote to state that they thought that I had ordered that the “the issue of costs to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant” was to be dealt with at the ancillary matters hearing and advanced the argument, on the basis of a paragraph...