Ayq v Ayr

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 05 November 2012
• Date: 05 November 2012
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 33 of 2012 and Summons No 4696 of 2012
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

AYQ

Plaintiff

and

AYR and another matter

Defendant

[2012] SGCA 66

Chao Hick Tin JA

,

Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA

and

Sundaresh Menon JA

Civil Appeal No 33 of 2012 and Summons No 4696 of 2012

Court of Appeal

Family Law—Maintenance—Children—Wife presenting new evidence on appeal relating to recently diagnosed illness—Wife claiming for higher percentage contribution by husband's to children's maintenance—Insufficient evidence before appellate court—Whether wife should apply instead for variation of maintenance order in court below

Family Law—Maintenance—Wife—Wife presenting new evidence on appeal relating to recently diagnosed illness—Wife claiming higher periodic maintenance —Insufficient evidence before appellate court—Whether wife should apply instead for variation of maintenance order in court below

Family Law—Matrimonial assets—Division—Classification methodology—Wife claiming indirect contributions not accorded sufficient weight in division of matrimonial assets when classification methodology was used—Whether indirect contributions ought to be accorded same weight in relation to each class of matrimonial assets under classification methodology

Family Law—Matrimonial assets—Division—Wife claiming indirect contributions not accorded sufficient weight in division of matrimonial assets when classification methodology was used—Whether global assessment methodology or classification methodology should be applied in division of matrimonial assets

The husband (‘the Husband’) and wife (‘the Wife’) were married for 23 years. Both were doctors with their own private clinics. They had two children; the elder was a 20-year-old daughter pursuing her university education in England while the younger was a 16-year-old son studying locally at an international school. Interim judgment of divorce was granted on 18 March 2009. The ancillary matters heard by the High court judge (‘the Judge’) concerned the following: (a) the custody, care and control of the children, (b) the division of matrimonial assets, and (c) the maintenance of the Wife and the children.

The orders made by the Judge were as follows. He ordered that the children's joint custody be granted to both parties and the Wife was to have sole care and control with the Husband having reasonable access. In dividing the matrimonial assets, the Judge used the classification method. He ordered that the Wife obtain 39% of the matrimonial home's net sale proceeds, 5% of the Husband's share of the Australian house sale proceeds and 20% of the parties' combined matrimonial assets not arising from the sale of real property. The Husband was to obtain the balance of the matrimonial assets. He could set off sums due to the Wife against his share of the matrimonial home sale proceeds. In so far as the Wife's maintenance was concerned, the Judge ordered the Husband to pay $1 a month from 1 January 2010 to her. For the children's maintenance, the Husband was to pay 60% of their $2,000 per month maintenance from 1 January 2010 and the Wife was to reimburse him 40% of the children's school fees from 1 January 2009 and 40% of the daughter's overseas accommodation and living expenses. The Wife could set off these sums against her share of the matrimonial home sale proceeds.

The Wife appealed only against the Judge's orders relating to the division of matrimonial assets and maintenance for herself and the children. For the former, she contended that the Judge had failed to sufficiently value her indirect contributions in using the classification methodology. In relation to the latter, she filed Summons No 4696 of 2010 to seek leave to adduce fresh evidence on appeal. The fresh evidence related to her recently diagnosed illness and included medical reports, medical receipts and her clinic's sales summary following her diagnosis.

Held, allowing the appeal on division of matrimonial assets but dismissing the appeal on maintenance for the Wife and children with liberty to apply to the High court for variation with the appropriate evidence:

(1) Neither the global assessment methodology nor the classification methodology was superior to the other. Both were consistent with the legislative framework in s 112 of the Women's Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed). The court should apply the methodology which achieved the aim of dividing matrimonial assets in a just and equitable manner: at [17].

(2) The Judge was justified in adopting the classification methodology as the various matrimonial assets lent themselves to classification under three headings, namely, the sale proceeds of the Singapore matrimonial home, the sale proceeds from the Husband's share of the Australian house, and the matrimonial assets not arising from the sale of real property: at [19].

(3) In using the classification methodology in matrimonial asset division, indirect contributions had to be factored in and its weightage had to remain constant in relation to each class of matrimonial assets: at [22].

(4) The court's assessment of a spouse's indirect contribution should be performed with retrospective lenses, looking back and fully appreciating the entire context and circumstances of the marriage. It should not be done in a time-specific manner by assessing the extent of indirect contributions of a spouse as at that specific point in time when a particular matrimonial asset was acquired. Further, it should not be done in a blinkered fashion where the court would focus on each individual asset class and decide the weightage of a spouse's indirect contribution for that particular asset class, resulting in varying weights being accorded for indirect contributions in different asset classes. Such an approach accorded with the view of the matrimonial enterprise being a partnership of efforts of both spouses and that, during the course of marriage, the spouses contribute to the betterment of it in ways they could without conscious accounting of the quantum and type of their respective contributions. Such an approach also accorded with the court's view of the importance of ensuring that indirect contributions were not undervalued but were given their appropriate weight: at [23] and [24].

(5) A 30% weightage for the Wife's indirect contributions was appropriate in light of all the facts and circumstances of the present case, including the length of the marriage and the actual contributions and career sacrifices which the Wife had made. This 30% weightage for her indirect contributions ought to be applied across all the three classes of matrimonial assets: at [23].

(6) Given the Wife's new evidence relating to her recently diagnosed illness presented on appeal, there appeared to be scope for adjustment in relation to the issue of the Wife and children's maintenance, respectively. However, with insufficient evidence before this court for it to arrive at a principled decision, the appropriate route would be for the Wife to apply to the High Court for a variation of the maintenance orders instead: at [26] and [28].

AJR v AJS [2010] 4 SLR 617 (refd)

BAA v BAB [2012] SGDC 193 (refd)

NK v NL [2007] 3 SLR (R) 743; [2007] 3 SLR 743 (refd)

Women's Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) s 112

Isaac Tito Shane, Justin Chan Yew Loong and Neo Bi Zhi Peggy (Tito Isaac & Co LLP) for the appellant

Imran Hamid Khwaja and Guy Bte Ghazali (Tan Rajah & Cheah) for the respondent.

Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA

(delivering the grounds of decision of the court):

Introduction

1 This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court judge (‘the Judge’) in AYQ v AYR [2012] SGHC 80 (‘the GD’).

2 The Judge dealt with the following issues: the division of matrimonial assets between the parties, the maintenance for...