AOF v ACP and another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: George Wei JC
• Judgment Date: 20 May 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGHC 99
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Divorce Transferred No 1064 of 2011
• Published date: 10 July 2014
• Year: 2014
• Hearing Date: 17 December 2013,08 October 2013
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mahendra Segeram (Segeram & Co)
• Defendant Counsel: Lucy Netto (Netto & Magin LLC)
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Custody,Access,Care and Control,Matrimonial Assets,Division,Maintenance,Wife,Child
• Citation: [2014] SGHC 99

George Wei JC: Introduction

This case concerns the application by the plaintiff wife (“the Plaintiff”) in respect of ancillary matters arising out of the divorce with the defendant husband (“the Defendant”). Given that both parties had declared the value of the matrimonial assets as exceeding $1.5m, the hearing of the ancillary matters was transferred to the High Court. The matter first came before me on 8 October 2013 and an adjournment was granted for parties to forward to the Supreme Court their respective affidavits in relation to the ancillary matters. The hearing eventually took place on 17 December 2013 and I reserved judgment upon the conclusion of the hearing.

The proceedings below

Divorce proceedings were commenced by the Plaintiff on 8 March 2011 on the grounds of adultery by the Defendant with the Co-Defendant. The Defendant did not contest the divorce and interim judgment was granted on 13 May 2011.

On 12 April 2011 (shortly before the interim judgment was granted), the learned District Judge, Mr Edgar Foo Mau Peng, made an interim order granting care and control of the child to the Defendant, with the Plaintiff having supervised access in accordance with certain terms set out in the interim order.The Plaintiff subsequently appealed to the High Court in Registrar’s Appeal Subordinate Courts No 69 of 2011 (“RAS 69/2011”) where she sought care and control of the child. On 9 September 2011, Philip Pillai J granted the Plaintiff and the Defendant joint custody of the child. Nevertheless, care and control of the child was to remain with the Defendant. Revised provisions were also set out in detail as regards the issue of interim access by the Plaintiff. This included obligations imposed on both parties to ensure that the child complied with the court-ordered access arrangements. Parties were also given liberty to apply to court in the event of non-compliance with the interim order.

At the ancillary proceedings before this court, the Plaintiff has sought care and control of the child and for a division of the matrimonial assets, details of which are set out below. In addition, she has also sought an order for nominal maintenance of $1 per month for herself.¹ In response, the Defendant disputes the need for nominal maintenance and argues that a clean break would be appropriate on the facts of the present case.² The Defendant has in turn sought an order that the Plaintiff contributes $1,000 per month towards the child’s savings account, which will be set aside as savings for the child’s future.³

The parties’ marriage

The parties were married on 16 March 1997. Given that the interim judgment was granted on 13 May 2011, the length of the marriage was approximately 14 years. The only child of the marriage was 12 years old at the time of the ancillary proceedings.⁴

The Defendant’s employment

At the time when the child was born, the Defendant was working as an IT Manager at the Royal Bank of Scotland (“RBS”).⁵ Sometime in April or May 2008, the Defendant’s employment with RBS was terminated.⁶ Thereafter, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant undertook some contract work with Merrill Lynch from December 2008 to October 2009, as well as with the Australian and New Zealand Banking Group from November to December 2009.⁷ It appears that the Defendant may also have undertaken some freelance work in Johor Bahru, Malaysia in May 2008.

I note that the evidence as to the extent and nature of the Defendant’s employment and income after leaving RBS in April or May 2008 until his declared present employment as a Project Manager with [B] Pte Ltd is far from clear.

Nevertheless, it appears that between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2011, the Defendant may have been unemployed given that he had declared his income as being $1, as reflected in his IRAS Notice of Assessment for both 2011 and 2012.⁸ That said, it is not disputed that the Defendant has now secured employment as a Project Manager with [B] Pte Ltd with a gross monthly salary of $12,000.⁹ It is not, however, immediately clear as to when he secured this position.

The Plaintiff’s employment

During the course of the marriage, it appears that the Plaintiff was working for a bank in Singapore. In fact, the Plaintiff states in her affidavit that she is presently working as a Product Controller in the position of an Assistant Vice President at [C].¹⁰ She has declared a monthly gross income of $9,083.33, while her monthly take-home pay, inclusive of bonuses and commission, was said to be $7,866.¹¹ In support of her declarations, the Plaintiff has exhibited payslips for the months of December 2011 to February 2012, together with an IRAS Notice of Assessment dated 3 June 2011.¹² In addition, it is noted that the Plaintiff has also included in her Bundle of Authorities and Documents a copy of her latest employment contract with [D] dated 5 June 2013.¹³ This contract states that, as from 2 September 2013, the Plaintiff was to be employed by [D] as an Assistant Vice President (Product Control) with a basic annual salary of $70,000. The contract also makes reference to her eligibility for an annual discretionary variable incentive award.

It appears that the Plaintiff worked in Singapore throughout the entire marriage. On this basis, the Plaintiff asserts that she had been able to look after the child and the parties’ matrimonial home with the assistance of a domestic helper.¹⁴

The matrimonial assets

With reference to the written submissions and affidavits, it appears that the parties purchased two real properties during the course of their marriage. The first is an HDB flat at [address redacted] (“the HDB Property”). This property is held by the parties jointly and the Plaintiff has described it as the HDB matrimonial home. It is not clear from the evidence before me as to when exactly the HDB Property was acquired, although it seems likely to have been sometime in 1997. The second property is a private apartment at [address redacted] (“the Private Property”). The Private Property was purchased in November 2001 at the price of $844,823.¹⁵ The parties moved into the Private Property towards the end of 2004. The parties’ intention was to rent out the HDB Property and apply the rental proceeds towards the repayment of the mortgage for the Private Property.

Towards the end of 2008, the parties decided to move out of the Private Property into a rented accommodation at [address redacted] (“the Rented Apartment”). It appears that this was about the time when the Defendant’s employment with RBS was terminated. According to the Plaintiff, the parties had been facing problems in their relationship and the idea behind the move was to lease out the Private Property and for the parties to have a fresh start in the Rented Apartment.¹⁶ In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the parties agreed to use the rental proceeds from the Private Property to offset the rent for the Rented Apartment.¹⁷ Subsequently, the Plaintiff terminated the lease for the Rented Apartment as she had problems paying the rent, as well as the monthly mortgage instalments for the Private Property.¹⁸ According to the Plaintiff, this was because the Defendant had failed to hand over the rental proceeds for both the HDB Property and the Private Property.¹⁹Thereafter, the Plaintiff moved back to her parents’ home.

As regards the division of matrimonial assets, the Plaintiff has sought the following orders: for the HDB Property to be divided on a 60:40 basis in her favour,²⁰ and for the Private Property to be divided on a 90:10 basis in her favour.²¹

With regard to the assets in each party’s sole name, both parties agree that each is to retain such assets which are in their individual names, including but not limited to:²² money in their own bank accounts; money in their respective CPF accounts; insurance policies; and motor vehicles.

As for all other matrimonial assets held in their joint names, the Plaintiff has asked for these assets to be divided equally.²³ The Plaintiff has also asked for the Defendant’s name to be removed as the nominated beneficiary in four insurance policies.²⁴

The Defendant, on the other hand, has prayed for a division of the HDB Property on a 80:20 basis in his favour.²⁵ As regards the Private Property, the Defendant has sought a division on a 50:50 basis.²⁶

Care, control and access of the child

Before moving on to the issue of the division of matrimonial assets, I will first deal with the Plaintiff’s request for care and control of the child to be awarded to her.

It will be recalled that on 9 September 2011, at the hearing of RAS 69/2011, Pillai J granted interim care and control of the child to the Defendant, with detailed conditions governing the Plaintiff’s right of access. The Plaintiff asserts that the proceedings arose from the fact that the child was taken away from her by the Defendant on 13 April 2010.²⁷ This was about a year before divorce proceedings were commenced and well before the interim order was made. The circumstances in which the child was taken away in April 2010 are unclear. Nonetheless, it is undisputed that ever since they were separated, the Plaintiff has had very little contact with the child. Notwithstanding the interim access order in the Plaintiff’s favour, it appears that the child has been very reluctant to see the Plaintiff even though she is keen to see the child. The Defendant states that he has no objections at all to the Plaintiff having access in accordance with the interim order granted by Pillai J.²⁸ The only problem is that the child refuses to see the Plaintiff.

In these circumstances, the Plaintiff obtained further directions from Pillai J on 6 February 2012 for the Defendant to deliver the child to the Plaintiff for access on 8 February 2012 and 15 February 2012, with access thereafter as per the interim order dated 9 September 2011. Unfortunately, on the day...