ABT v ABU

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 10 February 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGHC 25
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Divorce Transferred No 4834 of 2011
• Year: 2014
• Published date: 07 May 2014
• Hearing Date: 15 January 2014,05 February 2014
• Plaintiff Counsel: Chia Chwee Imm Helen (Chia-Thomas Law Chambers LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Rina Kalpanath Singh (Kalco Law LLC)
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Matrimonial assets,Division,Maintenance
• Citation: [2014] SGHC 25

Choo Han Teck J:

This case concerns issues of maintenance and the division of matrimonial assets. The plaintiff/husband was born on 4 March 1964 and the defendant/wife, on 5 February 1965. Both are permanent residents of Singapore. The plaintiff is working as an editor, drawing a net monthly income of S$24,587.70. They were married in the district of Sudbury, in the county of Suffolk, on 10 February 1997. They have one daughter, “V”, born on 20 November 1998. Pursuant to a mediation agreement reached by the parties on 27 October 2010, V was to stay with the defendant and parties were to have joint custody over her. In May 2011, V moved to stay with the plaintiff. V continues to stay with the plaintiff to date. When counsel appeared before me, they had no objections with the current arrangement, that is, V to stay with the plaintiff and the defendant to have reasonable access. Leave to apply will not be prejudiced so long as V remains a minor. The only issues before me were of division of assets, and maintenance for the defendant.

In August 2011, while the marriage was still subsisting, the defendant commenced maintenance proceedings against the plaintiff, claiming arrears for maintenance – which the plaintiff agreed to pay pursuant to the mediation agreement – since May 2011. In the midst of the maintenance proceedings, the plaintiff filed the writ of divorce on 6 October 2011. Interim judgment was granted on 19 June 2012. The defendant subsequently withdrew her claim for maintenance, as the plaintiff was already paying her a monthly sum of S$5,750 at that point. Parties were in agreement on the matter of custody, care and control of, and access to, V. I deal now with the division of assets.

While the parties were largely in agreement over what constituted the pool of assets, both parties arrived at different values, each on either side of the S$1.5m mark. The plaintiff provided the most recent declaration, dated 13 January 2014. On the plaintiff’s calculation, the net value of the matrimonial assets, as at 13 January 2014, was below S$1.5m. I am of the view that the plaintiff’s calculations were flawed as his numbers did not add up. Mathematically, the sum of the declared gross assets was not S$1,647,056.20, as stated. Rather, the gross figure should have been S$1,679,675.45. This brought the plaintiff’s total net value to S$1,480,163.98, instead of the stated S$1,447,544.80. In any case, the plaintiff’s net figure remained below S$1.5m.

The defendant, however, asserted the net figure was more than S$1.5m. Her most recent declaration, dated 10 October 2013, excluded one of the parties’ largest liabilities, that is, the mortgage on the house in Suffolk. This amount was quantified as £79,072, dated 31 March 2013, by the plaintiff. In Singapore currency, this would be S$164,975.27, calculated by the plaintiff using the exchange rate as at 13 January 2014. If subtracted from the defendant’s total net figure (S$1,650,791.13), this would bring the sum to S$1,482,080.93, below the S$1.5m mark.

There were some other inconsistencies between the parties’ declarations. This is set out in the table below:

No	Asset	Plaintiff’s valuation	Defendant’s valuation	Comments
1	Plaintiff’s car	S$39,000, subject to loan of S$13,457.20. Net value: S$25,542.80	S$29,000	The plaintiff asserted his car was a Mazda RX-8, bearing registration number SKCxxxZ. The defendant asserted the car was a Hyundai Getz, bearing registration number SGVxxxxE. The plaintiff mentioned the sale of a Hyundai Matrix in his submissions, the proceeds of which were split equally (S$8,500 went to the defendant). The defendant’s assertion is likely inaccurate and outdated. The plaintiff’s valuation is preferred.
2	Plaintiff’s Citibank savings account bearing number xxxxxxx029	S$32,618.78 (as of 10 January 2014)	S$139,606 (as of July 2012)
3	Defendant’s DBS current account bearing number xxx-xxxx04-0	S$110,784.65 (as of 30 June 2012)	S$43,526.37 (as of 31 August 2013)
4	NatWest current plus joint account bearing number xxxxx418	£810.30 (S$1,689.26) (as of 13 December 2013, converted using exchange rate as of 13 January 2014)	£808.22 (S$1,640.68) (as of 13 September 2013)	This entry featured twice in the defendant’s declaration, once in the plaintiff’s assets and once in the defendant’s. This led to double-counting.
5	Defendant’s NatWest first reserve account bearing number xxxxx232	£41,222.44 (S$82,244.42) (as of 3 April 2012, converted using exchange rate as of 11 October 2013)	£41,273.85 (S$83,785.92) (as of 3 July 2013)	The defendant argued she is holding this amount on trust for a friend.
6	Defendant’s NatWest account bearing number xxxxx169	Not applicable	£15,108.68 (S$30,670.62) (as of 28 June 2013)	The plaintiff did not declare this asset.

While some of the discrepancies can be explained by the outdated nature of the defendant’s declaration, some, such as item 4 in the table, were a result of accounting errors. It was on the unreliable numbers that the parties founded their arguments on division. The defendant argued that she should be entitled to at least 50% of the assets. Calculated based on the defendant’s declaration, this amounted to S$825,395.57. The plaintiff argued no further division should be ordered, as he had already given S$778,372 to the defendant. The plaintiff argued that this amounted to 54% of the net total of the matrimonial assets. However, this figure of 54%...