[2007] SGHC 152

“(i) Pursued issues that are unreasonable or immaterial, or insisting that the court determine every point regardless of its significance or merit: ET v ES [2007] SGHC 152 (“ET”) at [24]; VDX v VDY [2021] SGHCF 2 at [39] and [40]; BOI v BOJ [2018] 2 SLR 1156 at [3].”

“sing his assets and means is less likely to receive a favourable costs order (JBB at [33]). Costs may be ordered against parties who are found to have made patently unmeritorious allegations (ET v ES [2007] SGHC 152 at [24]). By the same token, those who are found to have incurred unnecessary costs will not be allowed”

“f my finding at [40] above were wrong and the Stevens Close Property were considered to be an entirely pre-marriage asset, the Husband’s submission would still be wrong as a matter of law. In ET v ES [2007] SGHC 152 (“ET”), Lee Seiu Kin J held that the income from rent or dividends received during the marriage are matr”

“I then considered the legal principles which applied to the assets in question. In the course of argument, the Wife cited the authority of ET v ES [2007] SGHC 152 (“ET v ES”), which ostensibly supported her argument that the dividends were “matrimonial assets” under s 112(10) that should be included in the pool. In ET”