ACY v ACZ

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: George Wei JC
• Judgment Date: 01 April 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGHC 58
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 26 November 2013,01 October 2013
• Docket Number: Divorce Transferred No 3593 of 2012
• Plaintiff Counsel: Wong Kai Yun (Chia Wong LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: Carrie Gill (Harry Elias Partnership LLP)
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Matrimonial Assets,Maintenance
• Published date: 07 April 2014

George Wei JC: Introduction

This is the ancillary hearing of Divorce Transferred No 3593 of 2012. The Plaintiff and 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

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.

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.

The Plaintiff’s first marriage ended in divorce in 2002. Her first husband, [B], subsequently passed away in the 2004 tsunami disaster in Thailand. The Plaintiff, aged 51 years old, has three children from her first marriage, aged 7, 10 and 13 years old. Her children are attending boarding schools in the UK. The Plaintiff is an estate agent in Singapore. Since the death of her first husband, she asserts that she has been solely responsible for her children.¹ On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that he has provided monetary assistance for the children’s education. This was by way of an education allowance provided by the Defendant’s previous employer.² In response, the Plaintiff asserts that she has been providing for her children out of the insurance proceeds of [B]’s estate and that the Defendant had only used the education allowance once for a single school term.³ To this end, the Plaintiff states that the education allowance amounted to no more than £10,000. The Defendant denies the Plaintiff’s version of events and further asserts that his previous employer had provided financial support in excess of S$30,000 and that the benefit had been extended over four school terms.⁴

The Defendant had two prior marriages before the current marriage. His second marriage to one [E] lasted some 17 years. Decree nisi (as it then was) was granted in Singapore on 4 April 2006. There are two children to the second marriage, who were at the time of the divorce aged 11 and 14 years old. In respect of this second marriage, the Defendant was ordered to make a lump sum payment and to provide maintenance for [E] and the children.⁵ On the other hand, the Defendant’s first marriage to one [F] lasted some six years from 22 November 1980 to 1 December 1986. According to the Defendant, there were no children from that marriage and no maintenance order was awarded in favour of [F].⁶

The parties’ marriage

According to the Plaintiff, the relationship between the parties started some time in 2002.⁷ At that time, the Defendant was still married to his second wife. In her subsequent affidavits, the Plaintiff states that the parties did not merely date “on and off” before their marriage in 2009.⁸ In particular, the Plaintiff points out that she became pregnant with the Defendant’s child in 2003, but the pregnancy was later terminated as the Defendant was still married to [E]. Subsequently, the Plaintiff suffered a miscarriage in 2006 during the parties’ relationship before their marriage.⁹ At about that time, the Plaintiff and the Defendant moved in to the accommodation at [address redacted]. Thereafter in 2007, the parties moved into a rented property at [address redacted] (“the Singapore Property”).¹⁰ The parties married some two years later in June 2009 at the Singapore Property.¹¹ Accordingly, even though the marriage lasted only about three years, the Plaintiff asserts that the relationship as a whole lasted some ten years. This is relevant as will be seen below, given that the Plaintiff has mounted an argument that her indirect contributions prior to the marriage should be taken into account in relation to the division of the matrimonial assets.

The relationship between the Singapore Property and [D] Pte Ltd is as follows. [D] Pte Ltd was established in 2005 by the Plaintiff as a vehicle under which the Plaintiff appears to have conducted her business.¹² In 2007, [D] Pte Ltd entered into its first two-year lease for the Singapore Property, which was intended to be used as the parties’ matrimonial home. To this end, the Plaintiff and the Defendant injected S$45,000 into the share capital of [D] Pte Ltd. From that time, the parties lived together at the Singapore Property until recently.

As mentioned earlier, the principal matrimonial asset in dispute is the UK property at [address redacted] (“the UK Property”). The property was purchased in October 2011 after their marriage. Whilst the UK Property is held in the joint names of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, there is no dispute that it was paid for entirely by the Defendant. The purchase price of the UK Property was £370,000. The estimated value of the property was S$750,000 as at 29 November 2012.¹³

Apart from the division of the UK Property, the Plaintiff is also seeking lump sum maintenance of S$317,880.00 (being S$8,830.00 per month over a period of three years) from the Defendant on the basis of the clean break principle.

With regard to the Defendant’s history of employment, it is the parties’ common understanding that the Defendant is the Managing Director of [G].¹⁴ However, they disagree over the quantum of his salary – whilst the Defendant asserts that his gross monthly income is S$48,000 (being S$576,000 per annum as set out in his letter of employment, which excludes other cash or discretionary bonuses and benefits, such as the car allowance and medical benefits),¹⁵ the Plaintiff derived a different figure of S$78,407 per month from taking the average of his annual income in the Income, Deductions and Reliefs Statement by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (“IRAS”) for the year of 2012.¹⁶ In this regard, the Plaintiff asserts in her written submissions that the Defendant has failed to make full and frank disclosure of his financial means.¹⁷

As regards his expenses, the Defendant claims to spend the sum of S$55,800 per month. This figure includes, amongst others, payment of the university tuition fees and room rental charges for both children from his second marriage and maintenance for [E]. Given that this figure is higher than his declared income, the Defendant explained in his affidavit that he relies very much on his savings and discretionary bonus to get by.¹⁸ In respect of his debts, he declared that he was owing monies to the following creditors:¹⁹ S$89,674.66 to IRAS as at 2012; S$12,028.03 to American Express as at 29 November 2013; S$176.01 to HSBC MasterCard as at 29 November 2012; £1.96 to HSBC UK MasterCard as at 29 November 2012; and S$19,013.21 to [J] as at January 2013.

With regard to the Plaintiff’s employment, she asserts that she is a director and shareholder of [C] Pte Ltd, and earns an average gross monthly income of S$13,183 (being S$158,200 per annum). Whilst the Plaintiff has declared in her affidavit²⁰ her interests as both a director and shareholder in two other companies, namely [K] Pte Ltd and [L] Pte Ltd, she did not disclose receipt of any additional income from the same. In this regard, whilst the Defendant has requested that the Plaintiff furnish him with the financial reports of these two companies, he did not go so far as to argue for the drawing of an adverse inference against the Plaintiff for want of full and frank disclosure in respect of her financial means. Nonetheless, the Defendant has referred to the commissions and dividends paid to the directors of [K] Pte Ltd and [L] Pte Ltd. To this end, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s total income for the past three years has been in excess of S$1.16m, or an average of more than S$32,350 per month for the past three years.²¹

As for the Plaintiff’s expenses, she declares incurring the following sums per month: S$10,449.50 in respect of the Singapore Property, with S$9,312.50 being her half-share of the shared expenses and S$1,137 as the amount incurred by her in respect of other household expenses; and S$9,076 for her personal expenses, which includes the vehicle loan and petrol costs.

In particular, the Plaintiff highlighted that the Defendant has been making sporadic payments for his half-share of the shared expenses since her discovery of his adultery in April 2012. The Plaintiff alleges that whilst the Defendant continued to pay for the monthly bills charged by the telecommunications companies, he has not made full payment in respect of the SP Services and his half-share of the rental of the Singapore Property since September 2012. Therefore, the Plaintiff took out an application and the Defendant was ordered to make due payment of his half-share of the said rental and expenses by way of an order of court dated 8 November 2012.

In addition, the Plaintiff has excluded the monthly expenses of her three children from the first marriage with [B] even though they are still schooling in the UK. She explained this on the basis that the children are presently supported by the monies paid out of [B]’s estate. The Plaintiff does not have any outstanding debts.

Division of the matrimonial assets Settled matters

Prior to the hearing of the ancillary matters, parties have arrived at a settlement on 27 September 2013 on the issues regarding the rental deposit and household furniture of the Singapore Property, as well as the shareholding in the relevant companies as follows: Each party shall retain...