UAG v UAH

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Wong Keen Onn
• Judgment Date: 31 March 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] SGFC 2
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Divorce Suit No 4703 of 2012
• Year: 2017
• Published date: 13 April 2017
• Hearing Date: 22 September 2016
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ms Gill Carrie Kaur with Mr Timothy Wee (Harry Elias Partnership LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: Ms Linda Ong with Ms Lee Leann (Engelin Teh Practice LLC)
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Division,Matrimonial Assets,Access,Variation,Maintenance,children
• Citation: [2017] SGFC 2

District Judge Wong Keen Onn: Introduction

The parties have cross-appealed against part of the orders on the division of matrimonial home and maintenance for the two children of the marriage. HCF/DCA 137/2016 was filed by the Defendant husband (the “husband” or “Defendant”) while HCF/DCA 138/2016 was filed by the Plaintiff wife (hereinafter also referred to as the “wife” or “Plaintiff”) with regard to Orders in clauses 3(a) and 3(b) of the Ancillary Order made on 22 September 2016 (in respect of the division of the matrimonial assets). Brief Facts

The Plaintiff (“wife”) and the Defendant (“husband”) were married on 27 January 2004. The Plaintiff wife is 41 years old and is self-employed in the legal industry while the Defendant husband is 40 years of age and is now working as an operation executive drawing a monthly gross salary of $2,280.00. They have two children of the marriage, a daughter, B, aged 11 years; and a son, C, aged 8 years.

On 28 September 2012, the wife filed for divorce based on the husband’s unreasonable behaviour. The husband filed a Defence and Counterclaim on 19 October 2012. Interim Judgment was granted on an uncontested basis on 19 November 2012 on the ground that the marriage had irretrievably broken down both due to the Defendant’s unreasonable behaviour and the Plaintiff’s unreasonable behaviour. The length of the marriage till the date of the Interim Judgment was about 9 years. Prayers 7 (b) to (g) of the Claim and Prayers 4 (b) to (c) of the Counterclaim were adjourned to Chambers

The parties reached an agreement on 5 April 2013 on having joint custody of the two (2) children of the marriage with the wife having care and control of them and with specified reasonable access to the husband¹. The wife also applied for and obtained an interim order that the husband was to pay an interim maintenance of $2,400.00 per month for the two children from May 2013 plus further payments for the son’s school fees, the children’s tuition classes and certain expenses².

I dealt with the remaining issues on the division of the matrimonial home and assets; maintenance for the wife and children of the marriage; and costs.

Summons applications

Just prior to the ancillary hearing, parties filed three summons applications to vary the terms of access to the children in the Consent Order and to strike out certain portion of the affidavits. Summons 176/2015 was filed by the husband to strike out and/or for leave to reply to certain paragraphs in the wife’s affidavits. Summons 31/2015 was filed by the wife to vary the terms of access to the children. In response, the husband filed Summons 191/2015 on 16 January 2015 to vary the access order. These summonses were fixed together for hearing together with the ancillary matters hearing.

At the ancillary hearing, I made orders in relation to these 3 summonses. In summons 176/2015, I allowed paragraphs 15, 20 and 21 of the Plaintiff’s 4th Ancillary Matters Affidavit filed on 5 January 2015 (“the Plaintiff’s 4th AM Affidavit”) to remain but ordered paragraphs 16 to 19 of the same affidavit to be expunged. I also gave leave to the Defendant to file a reply affidavit.

For the cross-applications to vary the terms of access, I varied the husband’s access times during the weekdays to make it start and end early so to enable the children to return home and go to bed earlier (prayer 1 of wife’s summons 31/2015). I granted a consent order in respect of holiday access (prayer 5 of the husband’s summons 191/2015) and dismissed both the remaining prayers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 in summons 191/2015 and prayers 2 and 3 of the wife’s summons 31/2015. I was of the view that these changes in access would be in the best interest of the children. There is no appeal by both parties against these orders.

The Ancillary Orders

Both parties filed numerous affidavits for the ancillary hearing. During the hearing, parties were granted leave to file updated figures on the children’s expenses as they said that there had been some significant changes to the original figures were given earlier in April and May 2013. The wife had filed 8 affidavits (PA-1 to PA-5, PD-1 to PD-3) and referred to 4 other earlier Affidavits (‘PIM1’ to ‘PIM3’)³.

The husband had filed or caused to be filed the following 11 Affidavits (7 affidavits for himself ((“DA 1” to “DA 5”) and (“DD1’ and (‘DD2’, )), 2 each from his father and brother, (‘TWH-1’, ‘TWH-2’, ‘TWK-1’and ‘TWK-2’)) and made reference to 3 summons affidavits ((‘DIM-1’ to (‘DIM-3’)⁴:-

In respect of written submissions, the Plaintiff filed the following 7 submissions namely: (i) 1st AM submission on 01/12/2014 (PS-1), (ii) Supplemental AM Submission (For Ancillary Hearing) filed on 13/01/2015 (PS-2), (iii) Supplemental submission (For Ancillary and Summonses Hearing) filed on 13/04/2015 (PS-3), (iv) Supplemental Submission on maintenance (PS-4), (v) Third Submissions (for AM hearing) filed on 15/07/2016 (PS-5), (vi) Plaintiff’s Consolidated submissions (for AM hearing) filed on 28/07/2016 (PCS-1), (vii) the Joint summary of relevant information (marked JS-1) and (viii) Plaintiff’s Updated Calculations in Respect of the Division filed on 7/09/2016 (PCS-2)

The Defendant filed these 7 written submissions, namely, (i) 1st AM submission filed on 25/11/2014 (DS-1), (ii) 2nd Supplemental submission filed on 14/01/2015 (DS-2), (iii) Submission on issue of Operative Date in Determining the Value of Assets filed on 28/04/2015 (DS-3), (iv) Defendant’s Supplemental Submissions (Maintenance) filed on 28/05/2015 (DS-4), (v) Defendant’s Submission in respect of Division of Matrimonial Assets filed on 15/07/2016 (DS-5), (vi) Reply submission in respect of Plaintiff’s Consolidated submissions filed on 29/07/2016 (DS-6) and (vii) Husband’s Updated Submissions in respect of Division of Matrimonial Assets dated 18/08/2016 (DS-7).

The ancillary matters came before me for hearing. After reading the affidavits and hearing the evidence and the submissions from both counsel, I made the final ancillary order and the extracted order of court is reproduced below for easy reference:

“It is ordered that:

(1) The Plaintiff shall transfer (other than by way of sale) her title, interests and shares in the matrimonial property known as xxx (“matrimonial property”) within 6 months of the grant of Final Judgment upon the Defendant paying to the Plaintiff a sum equivalent to twenty-nine per cent (29%) of the net value of the matrimonial property (the net value being $3,924,444.00 (round-off)). The Defendant shall bear the full costs of the transfer. From her share of the net proceeds from the said matrimonial property, the Plaintiff shall refund to her CPF account all the monies utilized for the purchase of the matrimonial property together with accrued interest. (2) Save as above, parties shall retain their assets in their respective sole names. (3) The Registrar or Assistant Registrar of the Family Justice Courts, Singapore under section 31 of the Family Justice Act 2014 is empowered to execute, sign, or endorse all necessary documents relating to matters contained in this Order on behalf of either party, should either party fail to do so within seven (7) days of the written request being made to the party (4) There shall be no maintenance for the Plaintiff (5) The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff a sum of $1,050.00 per month for B and $1,020.00 per month C (“the children”) as maintenance for the said children with effect from 1st October 2016 and thereafter on 1st day of the each subsequent month. With effect from 1 October, the Defendant shall also pay a sum of $833.00 per month on the first day of each month as his contribution towards the accommodation expenses of the children (rental amount indicated at around $2,500.00 per month) provided the Plaintiff shows proof that such accommodation expenses are incurred by way of production of the rental agreement and proof of payment. Payment shall be made into the Plaintiff’s designated bank account (to be provided by the Plaintiff’s designated bank account (to be provided by the Plaintiff) (6) In addition, the Defendant shall reimburse the Plaintiff for half (50%) of the medical and dental fees and charges incurred for the children B and C within 3 days of production of a copy of the receipts. Payment shall be made into Plaintiff’s designated bank account (to be provided by the Plaintiff) (7) This order is made subject to the Central Provident Fund Act (Cap. 36) and the subsidiary legislation made thereunder (‘the act’), as well as the order of court dated 22 September 2016 in D4703/2012 made in respect of the parties’ CPF monies, property and investments. The board shall give effect to the terms of this order in accordance with the provisions of the act (8) The parties, including the board, shall be at liberty to apply for further directions or orders generally There shall be liberty to apply (9) No order as to costs

The Defendant husband and Plaintiff wife have appealed against part of my decision on the division of matrimonial assets and on the children’s maintenance. The wife accepted the Court’s determination of the parties’ respective direct financial contributions but disagreed with the attribution of the parties’ indirect contributions⁵. I now set out the full reasons for my decision.

Division of Matrimonial Assets The Plaintiff’s (wife’s) position

The wife submitted, relying on ARX v ARY [2016] 2 SLR 686, that the solely held matrimonial assets ought to be valued at the date of the Interim Judgment. Using this approach, the wife claimed that she had $353,161.57 worth of other assets in her sole name⁶. This figure did not include her share in her former firm, for which she was paid on 27 August 2013 under the settlement agreement. The wife contended that the pay-out was received after the date of Interim...