BMG v BMH

Choo Han Teck J:

(a) $150,000 in costs;

(b) $5,159.58 in disbursements;

(c) $4,708 for the Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”) report; and

(d) $44,708.84 for the accountant’s report.

His reasoning was that costs follow the event. As the plaintiff had obtained a judgment in her favour before me, she should be entitled to costs.

[4] To appreciate the context of the submissions by either party, I will briefly describe the proceedings in 2013. Parties appeared before me with two issues: division of matrimonial assets and maintenance. I set out the submissions of both counsel, as well as my finding, in the table below:

[5] As is evident from the figures alone, Mr Yim’s argument that the plaintiff secured a favourable judgment was based on a strained interpretation of “favourable”. He submitted that the court’s final determination on division, in terms of proportion (30% of assets), was identical to what the plaintiff sought. However, this argument neglected the fact that the court’s determination of the size of the pool of assets was significantly lower than the plaintiff’s figure. Mr Yim also argued that the court’s awarding of $8,000 in monthly maintenance to the plaintiff was a “victory”, as it was closer to the $10,800 figure that she prayed for than the $3,500 sought by the defendant. This argument neglected the duration for which maintenance was ordered. Looking at the figures as a whole, it is clear that the verdict was numerically closer to the defendant’s pleaded case. However, that is not to say that the defendant “won” or the plaintiff “lost”.

[6] Mr Yim also mentioned that the plaintiff had offered to settle the matter with the defendant on 29 June 2012, and that in that offer (contained in a letter sent by the plaintiff’s solicitors to the defendant’s), the plaintiff proposed the following terms:

(a) All the parties’ properties in Thailand are to be given to the plaintiff;

(b) All other properties of each party are to be retained by them;

(c) The defendant shall pay the plaintiff a lump sum payment of $800,000; and

(d) The parties are to pay their own legal costs.

[7] The plaintiff argued that these terms, which were rejected by the defendant, were very close to the terms in the final judgment. The terms in the final judgment were as follows:

(a) The plaintiff is to retain the properties in Thailand;

(b) Parties are to retain whatever assets were considered theirs;

(c) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff a sum of $434,000;

(d) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff a monthly maintenance of $8,000 for 18 months; and

(e) Parties are to agree on costs.