TPL v TPM

Facts

The Father and the Mother married on 16 December 2006 and have two children. Interim judgment of divorce was granted on 26 February 2015 in Divorce Suit No. 2524 of 2014. On 26 June 2024 the Mother applied in FC/SUM 1993/2024 to vary the ancillary order of 20 April 2016 so that certain properties would be sold and the children's maintenance changed. Around 15 applications followed, at least 10 of them by the Father, a partner in an international law firm acting for himself.

On 2 September 2024 an Assistant Registrar made a discovery order, and the Mother filed a compliance affidavit of more than 1000 pages on 14 October 2024. The Father then brought two applications. In FC/SUM 3101 he sought an injunction restraining the Mother from disseminating confidential documents from the divorce case, further discovery and interrogatory answers, delivery of her electronic devices and review of them by an independent third party. He claimed she had sent documents to her current husband; her counsel said she had sent only her own written submissions. In FC/SUM 3409 he sought orders compelling her to comply fully with the discovery order, with stays, fines, costs and a contempt finding if she defaulted.

Issues

1. Whether the Family Court had jurisdiction to grant remedies based on an action for breach of confidence
2. Whether the requirements for an interim injunction were met
3. Whether further orders should be made under rule 75 of the Family Justice Rules 2014 to compel compliance with the discovery order

Holding

The court dismissed both of the Father's applications, FC/SUM 3101 and FC/SUM 3409, and ordered him to pay the Mother costs of $1,500 (all-in) for each.

Reasoning

Following UQZ v URA [2019] SGFC 2, an action for breach of confidence lies outside the Family Court's jurisdiction, which is fixed by statute, and must be pursued in separate civil proceedings. The Father pointed to no written law conferring such jurisdiction. Section 10 of the Family Justice Act 2014 requires family proceedings to be heard in private, but does not confer jurisdiction over breach of confidence claims. His related requests for discovery, interrogatories and seizure of devices fell with it, and he had in any case already obtained discovery orders. Even on the test for interim injunctions, he showed no serious question to be tried: his prayers were broad and vague, and he did not show why the Mother's own submissions carried a quality of confidence. Nor did he show that the balance of convenience favoured relief.

On the compliance application, the discovery order stood unappealed and already bound the Mother, so ordering her to comply fully, or to file a duplicate affidavit, would be superfluous. Rule 75(1) allows such order as the court thinks just, but the Father did not establish non-compliance. Item by item, the Mother had either produced the documents, explained on affidavit that she could not obtain them, said they did not exist, or was not expressly required by the order to produce them; some were joint account records already within the Father's own possession. With no further order made, there was no basis for a stay, fines, indemnity costs or contempt, which the Father said at the hearing he was not seeking anyway.

From the judgment