VTQ v VTR

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chia Wee Kiat
• Judgment Date: 07 November 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] SGFC 78
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: D 2324 of 2019
• Published date: 11 November 2022
• Year: 2022
• Hearing Date: 08 August 2022,22 February 2022
• Plaintiff Counsel: Plaintiff-in-person
• Defendant Counsel: Defendant-in-person
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Custody,Access,Maintenance,Child,Matrimonial assets,Division,Wife,Husband
• Citation: [2022] SGFC 78

District Judge Chia Wee Kiat: Background

The Plaintiff shall be referred to as the “Wife” and the Defendant shall be referred to as the “Husband”.

The parties met through an online dating site sometime in 2004 and registered their marriage on 7 July 2006 in Vietnam. Soon after the marriage, the Wife came to live in Singapore with the Husband.¹ They have a young child to the marriage. The child has been in foster care since 17 May 2018.²

On 2 May 2018, the Wife left the matrimonial home all of a sudden.³ On 3 May 2018, the Wife filed an application for a Personal Protection Order (“PPO”) vide SS 978/2018 for herself and the child.⁴ This application was heard before the learned District Judge Goh Kiat Yi (“DJ Goh”). On 21 September 2018, DJ Goh granted a PPO for the child. The court found that the force used by the Husband to discipline the child exceeded lawful correction.⁵ However, the Wife’s application for a PPO for herself was dismissed.⁶

On 16 May 2019, the Wife filed for divorce on the ground that the Husband has behaved in such a way that she cannot reasonably be expected to live with him. The Husband contested the divorce and counterclaimed that the Wife has behaved in such a way that he cannot reasonably be expected to live with her.

At the contested divorce hearing on 25 March 2020, the parties came to a resolution for the divorce to proceed on an uncontested basis. Interim Judgment (“IJ”) was granted by reason that the Wife has behaved in such a way that the Husband cannot reasonably be expected to live with her based on the content of the amended counterclaim. The ancillary matters were adjourned to be heard in Chamber.⁷

On 14 January 2021, the parties filed FC/SUM 135/2021 (“SUM 135”) and FC/SUM 138/2001 (“SUM 138”). These are discovery applications filed by the Husband and the Wife respectively.

The applications were heard before the learned Assistant Registrar Sarah Chua (“AR Chua”) on 11 March 2021. The Husband’s application in SUM 135 was dismissed whilst discovery orders were made in respect of the Wife’s application in SUM 138.

The Husband filed FC/SUM 1195/2021 for leave to file Notice of Appeal out of time against the decision of AR Chua given on 11 March 2021.

On 14 June 2021, I granted leave to the Husband to file the Notice of Appeal out of time against AR Chua’s decision only in respect of SUM 135. Pursuant to the extension of time granted, the Husband filed FC/RA 6/2021 (“RA 6”) on 16 June 2021 against AR Chua’s decision in SUM 135.

I heard RA 6 on 21 July 2021. As there were merits in the Husband’s application, I allowed the appeal. I set aside the order of AR Chua given on 11 March 2021 in respect of SUM 135 and granted an order-in-terms of prayer 1 of SUM 135 save for sub-prayers (1)-(3) of prayer 1(5) which were withdrawn at the hearing before AR Chua. The Wife was directed to file and serve the affidavit of disclosure by 18 August 2021.

The Wife appealed against my decision vide HCF/RAS 16/2021 (“RAS 16”) filed on 3 August 2021. Arising from the Wife’s appeal, I rendered full written grounds in VTQ v VTR [2021] SGFC 85 (“VTQ v VTR”).

As detailed in my decision in VTQ v VTR, the Husband’s application concerns discovery in respect of five categories of documents that included bank statements of the Wife’s local bank accounts and Vietnamese bank accounts. The Husband had asked for bank statements commencing May 2018, which bears a rational connection to the time of the breakdown of the marriage. The Wife strongly resisted the application.

Among other observations made in VTQ v VTR, I found the position taken by the Wife to refuse discovery of the local bank statements particularly puzzling. I noted at [39]-[42] as follows: 39 The documents requested by the Husband are bank statements of three local bank accounts in the sole name of the Wife. It would not have been difficult for the Wife to provide the bank statements. In fact, she had on her own volition provided copies of her UOB statements going as far back as 13 October 2015 even though these were not requested by the Husband. According to the Wife:

… he wanted evidence for my assertion that I paid for [A]’s school fees, the nanny, and rent to him. So I disclosed a reasonable amount of my past statements to show the relevant transactions.

40 It is inexplicable why the Wife would resist the disclosure of the local bank statements from May 2018 so strenuously when she could have provided them easily. This is unlike her Vietnamese bank accounts where, as will be seen, she has explained that she would have to travel to Vietnam to obtain the bank statements. 41 In this regard, I find her reliance on the PD to refuse disclosure of the local bank statements to be tenuous at best. It is clear that paragraph 21(2) of the PD is intended only to regulate the list of documents to be produced by each party in the AOM. It does not purport to lay down any test for discovery. It is also relevant to note that Rule 63(9) provides, inter alia, that an order for discovery must not be made before the AOMs have been filed by the plaintiff and the defendant. Ordinarily, an application for discovery is taken out only after the AOMs have been filed. The fact that paragraph 21(2)(m) of the PD provides that parties are to exhibit in the AOM bank statements for the last 3 months is not a reason for a party to decline discovery of bank statements for other periods. 42 Indeed, it would be in the Wife’s interest to provide full and frank disclosure of relevant documents as this would help dispel any notion or suspicion that she might have dissipated or concealed matrimonial assets. The disclosure of relevant documents is necessary to aid in the factual inquiry and determination of the pool of matrimonial assets at the ancillary hearing, help avert needless arguments on adverse inferences and narrow the issues for determination, which would lead to a fairer resolution of the ancillary matters and the minimisation of costs (see Rule 73(b), FJR).

RAS 16 was dismissed by the Family Division of the High Court on 23 September 2021. As such, the Wife is required to comply with the discovery order made on 21 July 2021 in RA 6.

The ancillary matters were originally fixed for hearing on 26 November 2021. However, the substantive hearing could not proceed as the Wife had, on 23 November 2021, filed an affidavit dated 22 November 2021 (“P3”)⁸ without leave of court. The Husband objected to the late affidavit. In light of this unexpected development, the substantive hearing was adjourned for the Wife to file a proper application for extension of time.

The Wife’s application for extension of time was granted by the learned Assistant Registrar Michelle Elias Solomon on 17 January 2022. The Wife was also granted leave to file an additional affidavit to include any missing documents that were previously ordered in RA 6 by 24 January 2022. Consequential order was given for the Husband to file his reply affidavit by 7 February 2022. Parties were directed to file their supplementary submissions by 14 February 2022. The ancillary matters were fixed for hearing on 22 February 2022.

Pursuant to the leave granted by the Assistant Registrar, the Wife filed an additional affidavit dated 19 January 2022 (“P4”) where she explained, among other things, that she was cheated by a love scammer of approximately $30,000 from her UOB account in late 2018 to early 2019.⁹ She explained that the Husband is going to accuse her of dissipating monies and hiding them and hence has no choice but to say so despite being deeply embarrassed.¹⁰ She exhibited her UOB bank statements which she says she has inadvertently forgotten to include in her 23 November 2021 affidavit (P3)¹¹ and also a police report dated 8 November 2019.¹² The brief details provided by the Wife in her police report state as follows:

I am [name], currently stay and working in Singapore.

Kindly help me investigate my case.

In short, This guy named [name] (pls see all attached). He borrowed me money, he promise me return but til now he run away with all my money. about S$30K.

I need your help urgently because I am single mom … I need all these money to ensure my son safe.

My handphone contact [redacted]

His address is Ohio [address] USA.

His whatapps no:

His handphone: [handphone number]

The Husband filed a reply affidavit dated 5 February 2022 (“D3”)¹³ where he contended, among other things, that the Wife had alleged on numerous occasions that she worked very hard on two jobs to support and care for the child and was broke financially, but yet never once mentioned that she had time and extra cash for romance, and $30,000 is not an insubstantial amount of money. The Husband has serious doubt as to the true reason why the $30,000 was dissipated as no details were given by the Wife and pointed out that the police report was made five to six months after the Wife engaged counsel to file for writ for divorce.¹⁴

I will return to these issues, which relate to my discovery order and the related matter of adverse inference, later.

Shortly before the ancillary matters came up for hearing, the Wife filed a Notice of Intention to Act in Person on 10 February 2022. Hence, at the hearing before me on 22 February 2022, both parties were self-represented. The Wife, who has discharged her counsel, confirms that she is relying on the two written submissions dated 19 November 2021 (“WWS”) and 8 February 2022 (“WSS”) prepared and filed by her previous counsel. The Husband filed a written submissions dated 11 December 2021 (“DWS”) where he set out various tables. In “Working Table A”, he identified 10 “outstanding matters” which he elaborated on in his oral submissions.

After hearing the oral submissions of the parties, I called for a Custody Evaluation Report (“CER”) to assist me in my determination on the care arrangement for the child....