TEP v TEQ
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Court | Family Court (Singapore) |
Judge | Masayu Norashikin |
Judgment Date | 04 August 2015 |
Neutral Citation | [2015] SGFC 104 |
Citation | [2015] SGFC 104 |
Docket Number | Divorce Suit No. 4581 of 2013 |
Hearing Date | 28 April 2015 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Amarjit Singh and Javern Sim (Gloria James-Civetta & Co) |
Defendant Counsel | Lee Mong Jen (LMJ Law Corporation) |
Subject Matter | Family law,division of matrimonial assets,children's maintenance,no maintenance for the wife |
Published date | 05 September 2015 |
Parties were married in October 2000 and have 2 daughters aged 8 and 5 years old. Interim Judgment was granted on 13 March 2014 on both the Plaintiff husband’s claim and the Defendant wife’s Counterclaim. Both the Claim and Counterclaim relied on the fact that the other party had behaved in such a way that the filing party could not be reasonably be expected to live with him/her.
I heard the ancillary matters on 28 April 2015 and thereafter made the following orders:
The Plaintiff husband appealed against the whole of my decision. I set out below the grounds of my decision. I shall refer to parties and “Husband” and “Wife” respectively.
The Husband is 45 years old and is a senior manager. The Wife is 35 years old and is self-employed, running a baking school for children.
On 8 January 2015, parties agreed to have joint custody of the 2 children, with care and control to the Wife and specified times of access for the Husband.
On 28 February 2014, parties entered into a consent order that the Husband shall pay interim maintenance of $1,000 a month as maintenance for the 2 children. In addition, the Husband shall also pay:
In spite of the specific provision in the interim maintenance order, the Husband terminated the elder child’s education policy and was paid the surrender value of $7,114.17. He also terminated the children’s Medishield insurance policies. All these was done without notice to the Wife who then had to purchase fresh insurance hospital cover for the children.
The Husband said his take home monthly income as a manager is $4,499 and claimed monthly expenses of $6,921.58. The Wife claimed that the Husband is reimbursed by his company for his car expenses and mobile phone bills. The Husband admitted this and subsequently revised his monthly expenses to exclude the expenses paid by the company. The revised list of the Husband’s expenses is set out below, together with the amounts allowed as reasonable expenses. In addition, his company pays an additional $1,464 monthly for vehicle expenses, motor insurance and mobile phone bills.
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
The Husband’s personal assets are:
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
The Wife is self-employed in running a baking school for children. This was set up in 2002, with an OCBC microloan of $80,000 to pay for the start-up and initial running costs. She incorporated xxx (City Square) LLP as a limited liability partnership between the Husband and herself on 18 February 2010. She said the Husband was merely a nominee. On his request, his name was withdrawn on 2 April 2014. The Wife incorporated xxx on 3 March 2014. She said her monthly income is about $4,553 using average income for the last 3 years. She also said it is unlikely that there is any value to the business as it is a small start-up and self-run business.
The Husband submitted that the Wife’s income should not be based on the average over three years as her income is on an upward trend. He alleged that her monthly income in 2014 is more than $7,000. The Wife denied her take-home is $7,000 as any profits would also be used to repay bank loans and to finance the business.
The Husband wanted the Wife to provide an estimated value of her business which would have by now generated sufficient goodwill during the last 12 years. The Wife denied this and said that her business was reliant on her running the show, and that he was aware that she had to take on personal liabilities to support the business.
The Husband alleged that the Wife failed to declare businesses she set up in Liaoning, China and in Jakarta, Indonesia, and the income from those businesses eg licensing and franchise fees. The Wife’s response was that the income and expenses incurred for all her overseas joint ventures have been consolidated and included in the profit and loss statements of her business. There is no franchise in Indonesia; the outfit is a joint venture which has yet to be profitable.
The Wife further declared liabilities totalling $86,569.71 owing to banks for credit card bills and overdraft facilities. By the time of her third affidavit, the liabilities drawn on the Husband’s credit card and other facilities had been significantly reduced. She consistently maintained the position that she would pay for the loans utilised by her.
The Wife’s expenses and my findings on reasonable expenses are set out in the table below.
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
The Wife’s personal assets (excluding any value of her business) are:
| |
| |
| |
| |
To continue reading
Request your trial