[2026] SGFC 133

In the FAMILY JUSTICE courts of the republic of singapore

[2026] SGFC 133

SSP 444/2026

MSS 578/2026

Between

YKA

… Applicant

And

YKB

… Respondent

grounds of decision

[Family Law — Family Procedure — Costs]

This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports.

YKA
v
YKB and anor matter

[2026] SGFC 133

Family Court — SSP 444 and MSS 578 of 2026
Magistrate Soh Kian Peng
12 August, 15 September 2026

6 October 2026

Magistrate Soh Kian Peng:

1 This is a judgment on costs.

2 The Wife had brought the following two applications against the Husband:

(a) SSP 444 of 2026 (“SSP 444”) was her application to vary a Domestic Exclusion Order (“DEO”) previously obtained against the Husband.

(b) MSS 578 of 2026 (“MSS 578”) was her application for spousal maintenance under s 69 of the Women’s Charter 1961.

3 Both SSP 444 and MSS 578 first came up before me for mentions on 12 August 2026. Both matters were fixed on my mentions list at the 4pm slot.

4 The Husband arrived late for that mentions. In fact, I had marked him as absent and was about to issue a warrant for his arrest when he strode into my courtroom at 5.02 pm with a leisurely air. He was completely unbothered by the fact that he was an hour late. His attitude displayed a complete and total disregard for the court’s time.

5 Given that this was the first mentions for both SSP 444 and MSS 578, parties were scheduled for a session with the court counsellors. Because the Husband had turned up late, there was not enough time for the court counsellors to speak with the parties. This left me with no choice but to adjourn both SSP 444 and MSS 578 to a later date.

6 I informed parties that both matters were fixed for a further mentions on 19 August 2026 at 10 am at Court 1B. I reminded both parties that they were to attend that session, and that there would be consequences for failing to attend.

7 Given that the Husband had turned up late, I also indicated to parties that I was minded to order costs (see P. 22 r. 2 read with P. 3 r. 3(1) of the Family Justice (General) Rules 2024) and invited them to make submissions on that point.

8 After hearing parties, I ordered that the Husband pay the Wife costs fixed at $100. I also sternly reminded him that he had to attend punctually at the next mentions date on 19 August and that there would be consequences if he failed to turn up.

9 Clearly, my reminder to the Husband had fallen on deaf ears. That was evident when I next saw parties for a further mentions on 15 September 2026.

10 Again, the Husband arrived late for that hearing. It also transpired that he was absent from the further mentions on 19 August. Because he was absent from that hearing, a warrant of arrest was issued, and subsequently executed against him.

11 After recording the order by consent for SSP 444 and giving further directions in the matter for MSS 578, I asked the Husband why he was absent from the further mentions on 19th August. He furnished no reason at all for his absence.

12 I then invited parties to address me on whether costs should be ordered against the Husband given his absence at the hearing on 19th August.

13 The Wife took the position that the Husband should be ordered to pay costs to her, fixed at $500. She had taken the time to attend that court session which could not proceed because the Husband was absent.

14 The Husband, on the other hand, argued that he should not be liable for costs because he could not afford it.

15 In the circumstances, I ordered that the Husband pay costs to the Wife, fixed at $500 (all-in). A robust costs order was necessary to signal to the Husband that his blatant disregard for scheduled court events, despite the reminders given to him, was simply unacceptable and would not be tolerated.

Soh Kian Peng
Magistrate

The Wife in person and unrepresented.

The Husband in person and unrepresented.