BZD v BZE

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Steven Chong JA
• Judgment Date: 15 January 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] SGCA 1
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal Nos 134 and 135 of 2019
• Published date: 18 January 2020
• Year: 2020
• Hearing Date: 15 January 2020
• Plaintiff Counsel: Yap Teong Liang and Tan Hui Qing (T L Yap Law Chambers LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Gill Carrie Kaur and Yap Ying Jie Clement (Eversheds Harry Elias LLP)
• Subject Matter: Family law,Maintenance,Wife,Variation
• Citation: [2020] SGCA 1

Steven Chong JA (delivering the judgment of the court ex tempore): Facts

The two present appeals arise from cross-applications by both former husband and wife to vary a maintenance order issued on 30 November 2010 (the “Maintenance Order”) pursuant to s 118 of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) (“Women’s Charter”).

The parties were married in 1996. The husband is a British national. He was a banker during the marriage and remains so at present. The wife is a Taiwanese national. She was a homemaker throughout the marriage and has not sought employment since the divorce. The husband filed his writ for divorce on 7 September 2007. Interim judgment was granted on 7 March 2008, which was made final on 10 January 2011. The parties have two children to the marriage and were granted shared care and control of them. The son is currently 17 years old and is studying at a boarding school in the UK. The daughter is 19 years old and is studying at a university in the UK.

On 30 November 2010, Kan Ting Chiu J issued the Maintenance Order. Clause 5 of the order essentially provides that: The husband shall pay the wife a sum of $6,400 per month being her maintenance ($3,500 for her personal expenses, $2,500 for rent, and $400 for maid expenses); The husband shall pay the wife a sum of $600 per month being maintenance contribution for the children for the period they are with her; The husband shall pay for the air fare expenses for the two children for two visits to Taiwan per year; The husband shall pay the wife holiday expenses in respect of the children at $1,000 for both children per visit to Taiwan; The husband shall pay for all the children’s educational and medical expenses; All maintenance payment shall commence from 1 March 2011.

In SUM 609 of 2019 (“SUM 609”), the husband sought to vary cll 5(a) and (b) of the Maintenance Order, such that first, there shall be no maintenance for the wife; and second, that parties shall be solely responsible for the children’s day to day living expenses during their respective periods of care and control.¹ The basis for the husband’s application under s 118 of the Women’s Charter was essentially twofold. First, both children have moved to the UK to study and this resulted in a substantial increase in the educational expenses borne by the husband; second, the wife has become very wealthy since the issuance of the Maintenance Order as she now owns two private condominiums. The wife opposed the application on a number of grounds, highlighting inter alia that the husband’s income has also increased substantially and there is simply no issue of him not being able to afford the increased educational expenses.²

In SUM 1722 of 2019 (“SUM 1722”), the wife sought two variations to the Maintenance Order.³ First, that the husband pay the wife an increased sum of $10,100 per month being her maintenance with effect from 1 August 2019; second, that the husband pay for her international relocation costs from Singapore to the UK as well as her flight tickets for the relocation, and costs of her application. The material change of circumstances relied upon by the wife was the “need for [her] to move to the UK and to reside there in order to stay close to and be with the children who are both going to be there”.⁴ In this regard, it was undisputed that the wife would no longer be able to remain in Singapore past 20 February 2020 because her long-term visit pass, which is tagged to the children’s terms of study in Singapore, would have expired. In addition, in response to the husband’s contentions that she was capable of earning her own upkeep, the wife asserted that she was unable to work due to several medical conditions including depression and anxiety.

Decision below

The trial judge (“the Judge”) allowed the husband’s application in SUM 609 in part. She was satisfied that the increase in educational expenses of the children as a result of them moving to the UK constitutes a material change of circumstances that justifies variation of the Maintenance Order in accordance with s 118 of the Women’s Charter. She also noted that the wife was no longer paying for rental or a maid. The Judge thus held that the Maintenance Order was to be varied in two ways: That the rental component of $2,500 per month and the maid component of $400 per month shall cease with effect from 1 August 2019; and That the husband shall continue to pay to the wife the $3,500 per month for her personal expenses and the $600 per month for any period she spends with the children up to 1 February 2020 only. Notably, the Judge stated that the fact that the husband has had a pay rise since the issuance of the Maintenance Order does not per se mean that he should thus increase or continue to pay maintenance to the wife. Furthermore, the Judge also stated that there was no evidence that the wife is unable to support herself and contribute towards her own upkeep after having received maintenance for approximately 11 years.

The Judge dismissed the wife’s application in SUM 1722 to increase the maintenance payable on the basis that it was speculative since there was no evidence of the wife having taken any steps to move to the UK. She also found that the wife’s decision to move to the UK was a self-induced change of circumstances that was unreasonable having regard to the circumstances.

CA 134 of 2019 is the wife’s appeal against the Judge’s decision to dismiss the wife’s application in SUM 1722 while CA 135 of 2019 is the main appeal by the wife against the Judge’s decision to allow the husband’s application in SUM 609, effectively terminating maintenance payments to her for her personal expenses as well as the expenses during the time spent with the children. The wife is not appealing against the decision as regards rental and maid expenses.

Decision on the appeals

The starting point in determining the appeals is s 118 of the Women’s Charter which reads:

Power of court to vary orders for maintenance

118. The court may at any time vary or rescind any subsisting order for maintenance, whether secured...