Man sues to get $6,650 accidentally sent to ex-wife; court orders her to pay costs

In her defence, the woman described herself as a “passive recipient” of money from an “unknown and unverifiable source” and said she believed there was a real possibility that she was receiving scam messages.

But the court was unconvinced.

“Insofar as the defendant justifies her conduct by claiming that she was concerned that she was ‘confronted with a possible scam’, this beggars belief,” said the deputy registrar.

The two had previously corresponded by e-mail using the same addresses, the court noted. If she had any genuine concern about whether the e-mails were really from her former husband, nothing would have stopped her from checking with him directly.

“This is not a case of a complete stranger seeking the return of monies wrongly transferred,” said the deputy registrar.

The court also found that her requests for information on Dec 25 did not appear to be a genuine attempt to establish the man’s identity.

Rather, they appear calculated to vex her ex-husband, the deputy registrar said.

The requests were excessive, including demands for the source of the money, the reasons for the error, an identity document and wide indemnities.

More importantly, the woman did not appear to have genuinely been waiting for a response.

She made her police report and deposited the money with the police the very next day, without giving the man a reasonable opportunity to respond.

“It also bears noting that the request was made to the (ex-husband’s) solicitors on Christmas Day, when they could not reasonably have been expected to be working,” said the deputy registrar.

The dispute continued after the lawsuit was filed.

In May 2026, the woman applied to the court to strike out the man’s claim for the return of the money. The court described the application as “ill-conceived and without merit”, noting that she had failed to identify any specific ground for striking out the claim.

The deputy registrar said it appeared she had “retaliated” after the man filed his own application to strike out her defence.

She also made what the court described as “grave allegations” against the man and his lawyers, claiming that his lawyer had breached an undertaking to file a supplementary affidavit before a deadline and that the man had breached court directions to do the same.

The allegations prompted the court to call an in-person hearing at short notice, after which it found her allegations to be without merit.

The woman apologised “unreservedly” to the court and the man’s lawyer over the allegation concerning the solicitor.

The former couple eventually agreed to settle the substantive dispute in June, leaving only the issue of legal costs.

The police later confirmed that the $6,650 had been returned to the man on June 26.

In deciding the costs, Lim said Ng’s conduct before and after the lawsuit had been unreasonable, causing the action and unnecessarily prolonging it.

The deputy registrar also rejected her argument that the lawsuit was unnecessary, as she had already deposited the money with the police.

There was no legal authority to support the argument that depositing money with the police was an absolute defence to a civil claim, the court said.

The court also rejected her argument that she had made genuine efforts to settle the dispute.

One settlement letter accused the man of bringing the proceedings for an improper motive and of abusing the court process.

Another proposed resolving the case without costs while also saying that the woman might seek to recover her own costs.

And one day after she sent a draft agreement that was close to the eventual settlement, she made the allegations against the man and his lawyers.

“Taken in the round, the court finds that the defendant’s conduct was highly unreasonable,” said the deputy registrar.

The deputy registrar said the former husband was “understandably aggrieved” that a mistaken transfer to his ex-wife, which could have been remedied immediately, had instead escalated into a lawsuit lasting well over half a year.

The court ordered the woman to pay $6,500 in costs, plus GST. The total amount, $7,085, exceeded the original $6,650 that had triggered the dispute.

The case was a reminder that parties who fail to act reasonably could face “serious consequences”, including significant costs orders, the judge said.