TPY v TPZ and another appeal
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Choo Han Teck J |
Judgment Date | 18 January 2017 |
Neutral Citation | [2017] SGHCF 2 |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | District Court Appeal Nos 63 and 65 of 2016 |
Published date | 20 January 2017 |
Year | 2017 |
Hearing Date | 24 October 2016 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Adriene Cheong and Shaun Ho (Harry Elias Partnership LLP) |
Defendant Counsel | Gulab Sobhraj and Michael Low (Crossbows LLP) |
Subject Matter | Family law,Matrimonial assets,Division |
Citation | [2017] SGHCF 2 |
This judgment concerns two appeals relating to the division of matrimonial assets. District Court Appeal No 63 of 2016 (“DCA 63/2016”) is an appeal brought by the Husband, and District Court Appeal No 65 of 2016 (“DCA 65/2016”) is an appeal brought by the Wife. The Husband is presently 45 years old and works as a Sales Relationship Manager at a multinational company. The Wife is presently 43 years old and is a Manager at a bank.
The parties married on 18 June 1998 in the United Kingdom. On 23 November 2011, the Husband filed for divorce on the basis of the Wife’s adultery. The divorce was initially contested but the parties eventually agreed for the divorce to proceed on the basis of the Husband’s claim, amended to the fact of unreasonable behaviour instead of adultery. Interim Judgment was granted on 4 December 2012. The marriage lasted 13 years. There is one child to the marriage (“the Child”). The Child was born on 27 June 2001 and is now 15 years old. The parties jointly own three properties but the Wife presently lives with the Child in a rented apartment. The three properties are:
The ancillary matters were heard before the learned District Judge (“the DJ”) in 2015. The DJ gave her decision on the ancillary matters on 15 February 2016. The DJ’s Grounds of Decision can be found at
The Wife then filed DCA 65/2016 also appealing the DJ’s orders in relation to the division of matrimonial assets. The issues raised by the Wife are:
As pointed out by Ms Adriene Cheong (“Ms Cheong”), the Husband’s counsel, the issues raised by the Wife in DCA 65/2016 are linked to the indirect contribution issue raised by the Husband in DCA 63/2016. I therefore deal with the Wife’s case in DCA 65/2016 together with the Husband’s indirect contribution issue.
The decision belowAfter the trial below, the DJ ordered the division of matrimonial assets in the ratio of 34.5:65.5 in favour of the Wife. This ratio was based on the DJ’s finding that the Husband made direct contributions of 41% while the Wife contributed 59% towards the value of the pool of matrimonial assets. As for the parties’ indirect contributions, the DJ found that the Husband contributed 30% while the Wife contributed 70%. The DJ’s conclusions are summarised in the table below:
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
In arriving at her decision on the indirect contributions of the parties, the DJ found the parties’ indirect
[emphasis added]
In arriving at her decision on the parties’ indirect
On appeal, the Husband claims that the DJ erred in attributing a ratio of 70:30 for indirect contributions in favour of the Wife. The Husband claims that a fair ratio to accurately reflect the circumstances of the marriage is 55:45 in favour of the Wife. The Husband is not seeking to disturb the DJ’s finding that the parties made equal indirect financial contributions and his appeal
First, Ms Cheong argues that the DJ erred in finding that the fact that the parties had a domestic helper was immaterial because the Wife would have had to train and supervise the domestic helper in performing household chores. Ms Cheong submits that both Husband and Wife would have had to manage the helper on a daily basis and cites
Secondly, Ms Cheong argues that the DJ erred in finding that the Wife had made sacrifices in her career to care for the child. Ms Cheong submits that the Wife’s salary stagnated and rose without any correlation to the Child’s age or the supposed effort put in by the Wife. The Husband also claims that the Wife was ambitious and focused on her career throughout the marriage. In particular, he claims that the Wife would work whenever she could and despite her indications that she would stop working to care for the Child, she did not do so.
Thirdly, Ms Cheong submits that the DJ erred in considering the Wife’s special employee rates for the mortgages on the parties’ properties as an indirect non-financial contribution on the Wife’s part. The Husband submits that the special employee rates should be considered as indirect financial contribution.
Finally, Ms Cheong submits that the DJ failed to take into consideration the Husband’s indirect non-financial contributions. The Husband claims that the DJ did not take into account the following:
In the light of the above, the Husband submits that there is no reason for the ratio of indirect contributions that the DJ awarded and that the ratio of 55:45 in favour of the Wife...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
VSN v VSO
...the Indirect Contributions to the Husband. The cases that the Wife had cited in the 2nd Submissions, such as TPY v TPZ and another appeal [2017] SGHCF 2 and UTJ v UTK [2019] SGHCF 6 only amounted to an apportionment of 60% indirect contributions to the Wife for caregiving responsibilities. ......
-
VSN v VSO
...the Indirect Contributions to the Husband. The cases that the Wife had cited in the 2nd Submissions, such as TPY v TPZ and another appeal [2017] SGHCF 2 and UTJ v UTK [2019] SGHCF 6 only amounted to an apportionment of 60% indirect contributions to the Wife for caregiving responsibilities. ......
-
UHG v UHH
...se parties, I found that the Plaintiff had contributed more than the Defendant. As the High Court noted in TPY v TPZ and another appeal [2017] SGHCF 2, the working wife therein being the main supervisor of the helper as the husband travelled frequently, meant that the indirect contributions......