ANJ v ANK

• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Judge: Woo Bih Li J
• Judgment Date: 30 September 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGHC 189
• Citation: [2014] SGHC 189
• Docket Number: Divorce Transferred No 484 of 2012, (Summons No 10876 of 2012)
• Hearing Date: 29 May 2014,30 July 2014,22 April 2014
• Plaintiff Counsel: Johnson Loo (Drew & Napier LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Carrie Gill (Harry Elias Partnership)
• Subject Matter: Family law,Maintenance,Child,Wife,Matrimonial assets,Division
• Published date: 11 July 2015

Woo Bih Li J: Introduction

This is another case dealing with ancillaries after judgment has been given in divorce proceedings between a husband (“the Husband”) and a wife (“the Wife”).

Before the ancillaries were heard, the Wife filed Summons No 10876 of 2013 (“Summons 10876”) for an order for maintenance in the interim period pending the final outcome of the ancillaries. On 22 April 2014, I made an order in Summons 10876 that the Husband was to pay $1,200 per month in addition to what he was paying as interim maintenance for the two children of the marriage with effect from 1 May 2014.

Subsequently, on 29 May 2014, I gave oral judgment on: the division of matrimonial assets between the Husband and the Wife; maintenance of the Wife and of the children by the Husband. A copy of the oral judgment is attached hereto as Annex A.

The Husband then filed two notices of appeal to the Court of Appeal. The notice of appeal for Civil Appeal 102 of 2014 is in respect of my decision in Summons 10876 for interim maintenance given on 22 April 2014 and not on 29 May 2014 as erroneously stated in the notice of appeal. The notice of appeal for Civil Appeal 103 of 2014 is in respect of my main decision given on 29 May 2014. The Husband’s solicitors have clarified that the notice of appeal for Civil Appeal 102 of 2014 was filed as a precaution to avoid any technical objection from the Wife. The main appeal is Civil Appeal 103 of 2014. I state my reasons below.

Issues

The issues on appeal to the Court of Appeal are as follows: whether the Husband’s retirement funds was correctly calculated as $85,728.51; whether the matrimonial assets should be divided 60:40 between the Wife and the Husband; whether the method of division such that the Wife received 82.79% of the matrimonial home but the Husband would retain the assets in his name was correct; whether the Husband should have been ordered to pay $1 nominal maintenance for the Wife; whether the Husband should have been ordered to pay 65% of the children’s expenses as maintenance; whether the children’s expenses amounted to $5,355 per month or a lower sum; whether the order to pay maintenance for the children should commence retrospectively from 1 July 2013; and whether the Husband should have been ordered to pay costs of $800 for Summons 10876 which was the Wife’s application for interim maintenance.

The court’s reasons

The parties had resolved issues of custody, care and control of and access to the children. The outstanding issues before me were therefore the division of matrimonial assets and maintenance.

Division of matrimonial assets

My oral judgment sets out the value of the matrimonial assets. I also explained to counsel that I derived the value from information provided by the parties and summarised by counsel.

When the Husband’s solicitors, Drew & Napier, clarified the areas of dispute in respect of the Husband’s appeal, they said that the Husband’s retirement funds, as at October 2013, should not be attributed a value of $85,728.51 but a lower figure as I will elaborate below. They explained that the $85,728.51 was a notional figure which represented 100% of the value of the Husband’s funds in an INVEST-Retirement Plan of the Civil Service. This 100% was applicable only if the Husband were to retire in October 2013 and if he had reached the retirement age of 55 years as at October 2013. Under the INVEST plan, he was eligible to receive 100% of the value only if he retired at the age of 55. However, he was only 40 years of age as at October 2013 as he was born on 27 August 1973. As such, the vesting percentage would only be 45% of $85,728.51. Therefore the value to be attributed to his retirement funds should have been 45% of $85,728.51 = $38,577.83.

While there seems to be some logic in this explanation, the problem was that this explanation was not given at the time of the hearing before me. Parties had proceeded before me on the basis that his retirement funds amounted to $85,728.51. The Husband did not request leave to make further arguments. Also, even at this stage, I do not know whether there is documentary evidence to support the explanation. Furthermore, the Wife has not stated her position on this explanation.

The second issue is whether the Wife should have been granted 60% of the matrimonial assets.

As regards the direct financial contributions to acquire the matrimonial home, which was an HDB flat in Jurong, the Husband contended that the Husband’s contribution and the Wife’s were 62.14% and 37.86% respectively. The Wife contended that it was 56.7% and 43.3% for the Husband and the Wife respectively.

Parties were largely agreeable on the quantum of each party’s direct financial contributions by way of deduction from their respective CPF accounts and the cash each had provided. The main area of contention was the Husband’s alleged contribution of about $25,000 towards payments for renovation, furniture, property tax, maintenance fee, etc.

The value of assets which each held in his/her own name, ie, excluding the matrimonial home, was about 62.74% and 37.26% for the Husband and Wife respectively.

As regards the earning capacity of each of the parties, the Husband appeared to be earning about 65% of the combined income.

It was not possible for me to ascertain who was correct about the direct financial contributions. Bearing in mind that the parties’ figures were not far apart and taking into account their other assets and their earning capacities and looking at the direct financial contributions in the round, I was of the view that it would be fair to say that the Husband and Wife had contributed 60:40 respectively to acquire the matrimonial home.

As for the parties’ indirect contributions, the Husband contended that as the Wife also worked fulltime and as he is a hands-on father and a husband who contributed to the household chores and upkeep, the Wife’s non-financial contributions would not be more than his. Therefore, the Husband contended that all the matrimonial assets should be divided 60:40 in his favour.

On the other hand, the Wife asked for 90.7% for the matrimonial home and offered to pay $100,000 into the Husband’s CPF account to acquire his 9.3% share. The Husband would retain the rest of the matrimonial assets in his name.

The Wife proceeded on the basis that she would be awarded 43.3% (and not 40%) of the matrimonial home for her direct financial contribution to acquire it. She then estimated $100,000 to be the amount to be paid into the Husband’s CPF account to reimburse him for the principal (and interest) which he used to pay for the matrimonial home. That $100,000 worked out to 9.3% of $1,075,620.75 (which was the initial figure which the Wife was using as the value of the matrimonial home). Hence she claimed 90.7%. As she started on the basis of 43.3%, the difference was another 47.4% which she was claiming for her indirect contributions.

I was of the view that it did not follow that because the Wife also works fulltime and because the Husband has played a part in the raising of the children and to...