Acy v Acz

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 01 April 2014
• Date: 01 April 2014
• Docket Number: Divorce Transferred No 3593 of 2012
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

ACY

Plaintiff

and

ACZ

Defendant

[2014] SGHC 58

George Wei JC

Divorce Transferred No 3593 of 2012

High Court

Family Law—Maintenance—Wife claiming lump sum maintenance—Whether court should place significant weight on interim order for maintenance—Principles applicable to determination of appropriate multiplier and multiplicand—Principles applicable to quantification of lump sum maintenance

Family Law—Matrimonial assets—Division—Parties entering into settlement agreement in respect of majority of matrimonial assets—Whether court bound by parties' agreement

Family Law—Matrimonial assets—Division—Wife claiming share in foreign matrimonial asset paid for entirely by husband—Principles applicable to determination of just and equitable apportionment of matrimonial asset in short and childless marriage

The plaintiff (‘the wife’) and the defendant (‘the husband’) married on 19 June 2009. Both parties were from the United Kingdom (‘UK’) and they had been residing and working in Singapore for many years. The wife commenced divorce proceedings on the ground of adultery by the husband and interim judgment was subsequently granted on 6 November 2012 on an uncontested basis. The length of the marriage was about three years and there were no children born to the marriage. The plaintiff and the defendant were 51 and 56 years of age respectively as at the time of the ancillary hearing.

Prior to the ancillary hearing, both parties reached a settlement in respect of a majority of the matrimonial assets. Both parties also prayed for the matrimonial assets that were held in the parties' own names to remain as such. To this end, what remained in dispute was the division of a property located in the UK (‘the UK Property’) and maintenance for the wife.

In this regard, both parties agreed that the husband paid for the entire purchase price of the UK Property and the only dispute was in respect of the wife's indirect contributions. The wife asked for a 25% share of the UK Property on the basis of her indirect financial contributions towards the UK Property, and her other indirect contributions to the marriage in general. This included, amongst others, her financial contributions to the household expenses and rent, and her time and effort expended in searching for the UK Property. The wife also asked for lump sum maintenance of $317,880.

The husband was, however, of the view that the wife should not be entitled to any share in the UK Property and that no maintenance order should be granted in favour of the wife. The husband claimed that the wife's indirect contributions should be ‘offset’ against his own indirect contributions to the marriage.

Held, granting the application in part:

(1) Although both parties had arrived at a settlement as regards most of the matrimonial assets, the court was not bound by their decision and had the discretion to decide otherwise. The presence of an agreement was but one of the factors to be assessed in the light of the overall circumstances of the case in order to achieve a just and equitable division of the matrimonial assets: at [21] and [23] .

(2) The general principles governing short and childless marriages were set out in Ong Boon Huat Samuel v Chan Mei Lan Kristine[2007] 2 SLR (R) 729. In this respect, the division of matrimonial assets would usually be in accordance with the parties' direct financial contributions as non-financial contributions would be minimal: at [24] .

(3) The settlement entered into by the parties and the prayer for each party to retain any assets in their own names was a fair arrangement as parties were assumed to have paid for the assets in their own names: at [27] .

(4) The considerations involved in dealing with marriages that lasted more than ten years were likely to be different as compared to short marriages, such as in the present case: at [29] .

(5) As a matter of evidence, the presence of bills issued in a party's name could not be regarded as evidence of payment of those bills by that party. Therefore, in the absence of any proof of payment, the court was not inclined to make a finding on the wife's assertions that her indirect contributions to the UK Property extended to the payment of all household bills issued in her name, such as the council taxes and electricity bills: at [32] .

(6) The wife's indirect contributions to the short and childless marriage centred primarily on her coordination of their active social lives and the family holidays. The parties mainly relied on the services of a domestic helper with regard to the maintenance of the household and it appeared that both parties had made equal financial contributions towards the monthly household expenses. This included, amongst others, payment of the domestic helper's salary and relevant levies. Therefore, in contrast with the indirect contributions that were present in the cases cited by the wife, the wife's indirect contributions to the marriage in the present case were but minimal in the entire scheme of things. Bearing in mind the general emphasis on direct financial contributions in short and childless marriages, awarding the wife a 5% share of the UK Property would be a just and equitable proportion giving sufficient recognition to her indirect contributions to the marriage: at [34] , [35] , [39] and [40] .

(7) Whilst the lack of maintenance during the marriage may point towards the self-sufficiency of the wife, it was but one of the factors which must be assessed in the light of all the circumstances of the case. In the present case, the self-sufficiency of the wife based on her current monthly income did not conclusively yield the result that no maintenance should be awarded in her favour: at [50] , [51] and [54] .

(8) The length of the marriage was a factor to be taken into account in determining the appropriate maintenance order. Given that the marriage only lasted for a short period of three years, the wife's prayer for a multiplier of three years of maintenance was excessive: at [55] .

(9) An interim order for maintenance was intended to maintain status quo until the final disposition of the ancillary matters. Therefore, the interim order would not bear any significant weight in the determination of the appropriate maintenance order that the wife should be entitled to after the dissolution of the marriage. In this regard, the wife would not require as large a house as they had been residing in during the course of the marriage: at [56] .

(10) The husband had a greater earning capacity than the wife and there was no evidence to show that he would be unable to pay periodic maintenance or that it would be impracticable for lump sum maintenance to be granted in favour of the wife. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, the wife's contributions to the marriage were nowhere as substantial as what she had put it out to be. Coupled with the fact that the marriage was extremely short, the wife had not suffered any significant economic prejudice during the subsistence of the marriage. In the circumstances, a multiplicand of $4,000 per month, and a multiplier of 18 months, which was approximately half the duration of the marriage, would be an appropriate order. This would give rise to a lump sum maintenance of $72,000, which was a just and equitable sum for the wife: at [44] , [47] , [53] and [58] .

Ah So Etee v Fan Moli [2008] SGHC 142 (refd)

BG v BF [2007] 3 SLR (R) 233; [2007] 3 SLR 233 (refd)

Chow Hoo Siong v Lee Dawn Audrey [2003] 4 SLR (R) 481; [2003] 4 SLR 481 (refd)

Chung Jia Hwa v Tan Chor Mui [2007] SGDC 134 (refd)

FN v FO [2004] SGDC 292 (refd)

Foo Ah Yan v Chiam Heng Chow [2012] 2 SLR 506 (refd)

Gangesh Kumar Chawla v Prerna Dave [2010] SGDC 501 (refd)

Kalutara Achriage Dharshani Chrishanthi Herbert v P L B Sarath Manukularatne [2003] SGDC 78 (refd)

Lee Leh Hua v Yip Kok Leong [1999] 1 SLR (R) 554; [1999] 3 SLR 506 (refd)

Lee Siew Lin v Oh Choon [2013] SGHC 25 (refd)

Lee Yu Hou v Nam Lian Hiang [2011] SGDC 394 (refd)

Lim Cheok Kwang v Chew Fong Heng Shirley [2010] SGHC 214 (refd)

Oh Choon v Lee Siew Lin [2014] 1 SLR 629 (refd)

Ong Boon Huat Samuel v Chan Mei Lan Kristine [2007] 2 SLR (R) 729; [2007] 2 SLR 729 (folld)

Ong Chye Huat v Ng Wee Ngeng [2009] SGDC 498 (refd)

Smith Brian Walker v Foo Moo Chye Julie [2009] SGHC 247 (refd)

Tan Su Fern v Lui Hai San [2006] SGDC 159 (refd)

Tan Wei Chong v Kiew Nixian [2012] SGDC 182 (refd)

Wong Kam Fong Anne v Ang Ann Liang [1992] 3 SLR (R) 902; [1993] 2 SLR 192 (refd)

Women's Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) ss 112 (2) , 112 (2) (e) , 114, 114 (1) , 210 (10)

Wong Kai Yun (Chia Wong LLP) for the plaintiff

Carrie Gill (Harry Elias Partnership LLP) for defendant.

Judgment reserved.

George Wei JC

Introduction

1 This is the ancillary hearing of Divorce Transferred No 3593 of 2012. The plaintiff (‘the Plaintiff’) and the defendant (‘the Defendant’) reached a settlement on 27 September 2013 in respect of a majority of the matrimonial assets, which include the shares in [C] Pte Ltd and [D] Pte Ltd, household furniture and the rental deposit held by the property agent on behalf of Singapore Land Authority. Both parties have prayed for the matrimonial assets that are held in the parties' own names to remain as such and to this end, what remains in dispute is the division of a property located in the United Kingdom (‘UK’) and maintenance for the Plaintiff. There are no children born to the marriage.

Background facts

The parties

2 The parties were married on 19 June 2009. The Plaintiff filed for divorce on the ground of adultery on 25 July 2012. Interim judgment was subsequently granted on 6 November 2012 on an uncontested basis.

3 The Plaintiff and the Defendant are both from the UK but they have been residing and working in Singapore for many years. Both parties have had previous marriages prior to their marriage to each other.

4 The Plaintiff's first...