XHG v XHH

Facts

This decision fixed the amount of costs in Divorce (Transferred) No 706 of 2022 in the High Court (Family Division). In its judgment of 14 January 2025 on the ancillary matters between XHG (the Husband) and XHH (the Wife), the court had ordered costs against the Husband on a standard basis, and on an indemnity basis for the Wife's work in responding to his fifth affidavit of assets and means (AOM5), filed close to the hearing.

The Wife said she made an offer to settle on 27 June 2024 that was better for her than the result, and sought $40,000 in standard costs to that date and $50,000 in indemnity costs afterwards. She also relied on the Husband's conduct, alleging distress from his invasion of her privacy, a false police report and harm to her reputation. The Husband's counsel argued for no order on the hearing and no more than $500 for the late affidavit.

Issues

1. Whether the Wife's offer to settle entitled her to indemnity costs from 27 June 2024 under r 454 of the Family Justice Rules 2014.
2. Whether the Husband had a duty to disclose the material in AOM5 earlier when no disclosure order had been made.
3. What amount of costs the Husband should pay.

Holding

The court ordered the Husband to pay the Wife's costs of the ancillary proceedings fixed at S$5,000 on a standard basis, and $2,000 on an indemnity basis for her costs of responding to AOM5. Her claim for indemnity costs from the date of her offer was rejected.

Reasoning

The court noted that costs in family disputes are finely balanced, as the Family Courts favour conciliation over victory and defeat. An offer to settle under r 454 attracts indemnity costs only if it has not expired, and remains subject to the court's discretion. The Wife's offer stopped being capable of acceptance after 31 October 2024, when the parties entered a consent order on custody and access on terms from the Husband's own offer, and she did not renew it.

The Husband's argument that he had no duty to disclose without a prior order missed the point: parties to ancillary proceedings owe a duty of full and frank disclosure, as held in USB v USA [2020] 2 SLR 588. AOM5 produced bank statements for the first time to answer the claim that his bonus of $221,105 had been dissipated, when they could have been given much earlier. That justified indemnity costs for that work only. The Wife's allegations of emotional and reputational harm were unproven and of little relevance, as the ancillary hearing was not the forum for such compensation.

On quantum, the Husband had withheld material information despite requests, but the Wife was also not forthright about S$100,000 she transferred to a friend and S$77,730 she said was her father's allowance. Although she was now in person, she had been represented until the eve of the hearing, so full costs were ordered at a lower figure than usual.

From the judgment