UDR v UDS

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Daniel Koh Poh Leong
• Judgment Date: 10 July 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] SGFC 80
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Divorce No. 4404/2013
• Published date: 01 August 2017
• Year: 2017
• Hearing Date: 30 March 2017,07 April 2017
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Chhabra Vinit [Vinit Chhabra Partnership]
• Defendant Counsel: Ms Yoon Min Joo [Harry Elias Partnership LLP]
• Subject Matter: matrimonial assets - division - maintenance of wife and children
• Citation: [2017] SGFC 80

District Judge Daniel Koh Poh Leong: Introduction

Parties met in Sydney, fell in love and were married in Australia on 28 February 2000. The plaintiff wife was then about 20 years of age, and the defendant husband 28 years old. Soon after the marriage, in October 2001 both plaintiff and defendant moved to Singapore. The 2 children to the marriage, boys aged 13 years and 9 years were born here.

In June 2013, because of unresolved marital conflicts the plaintiff left the matrimonial home and did not return since. She filed for divorce on the 4th September 2013 alleging amongst other things, the husband’s infidelity and spousal violence; defendant denied the allegations and set out his defence and counterclaims. In the same month plaintiff also filed for interim custody, care and control of the children, defendant filed for the same orders in 2014. Parties attempted reconciliations, to put the marriage onto the right track notwithstanding the divorce proceedings initiated; these efforts continued purportedly even after interim judgment for divorce was entered, on the 28 September 2015. A reconciled family is always a desirable outcome, particularly for the children; unfortunately, it did not materialise here.

At the ancillary matters hearing before me arguments were canvassed on the following issues: Custody, care and control and access division of matrimonial assets maintenance of children maintenance of wife

After hearing the parties on financial ancillary matter, I ordered a division of the matrimonial assets between the husband and the wife in the ratio of 58: 42 applying the “structured approach’’ in ANJ v ANK [2015] 4 SLR 1043 (ANJ). The defendant husband was to pay the plaintiff wife her share of the matrimonial assets which worked out to be $613,393.74 in full and final settlement. I further ordered that there be no maintenance for the wife. Each party to be responsible for the maintenance of the children in the time that the children would spend time with the respective parents in their access arrangements. I ordered for custody evaluation report as the children are still young. It was necessary also to review the earlier interim order as this was all along an intensely contested issue. Eventually, no report was necessary as both parties quite sensibly agreed to spare the children any unnecessary anguish over the parents’ marital breakup. Both felt they were not ready to inform the children of the dissolution of their marriage. The consent order was made for joint custody and the defendant to have care and control over of the 2 children with detailed terms of liberal access to the plaintiff.

Dissatisfied with decisions of the court, the defendant husband alone appealed against the orders in relation to division of matrimonial assets and maintenance arrangement for the children. The wife has not appealed against any of the court orders. I now set out the reasons for the court’s decisions.

Division of assets

The primary matrimonial asset in dispute was the net sale proceeds of the matrimonial flat at xxx (the property). The property was bought in parties’ joint names. It was sold in or about November 2011 for a net profit of $1,371,843.25. The couple did not reinvest the profit to buy another house, but lived in various leased premises. At the time plaintiff left the matrimonial home, the family was staying at a rented premises at The Waterside, the defendant and the children now lived at xxx. The plaintiff claimed that defendant systematically dissipated the net proceeds of the sale of the property. Defendant denied that he had deceptively removed funds out of the bank accounts to deprive the plaintiff of her share of the matrimonial assets. He explained that the various sums of money taken out were loans made to various people, which he had accounted for some whilst others remained as debts to be collected.

It was not disputed that for the greater part of the marriage, the husband was gainfully employed and that predictably he had made more significant financial contributions to the accumulated assets in the marriage. The defendant claimed however that since 21 November 2015, he has been unemployed and remained so to-date despite efforts to secure alternative job. As regards the wife, save for her brief stints at work in the early part of the marriage, she largely took care of the house and the children until she left home. Since leaving the matrimonial home in August 2013, she was able to develop her own career and is now working as a consultant at xxx earning about $3,800 per month.

Law on division of matrimonial assets

Section 112(2) of the Women’s Charter set out the list of circumstances that the court may take into account when deciding whether and how to exercise its discretion in relation to division of matrimonial assets. This list is not exhaustive, and is still subject to the overriding discretion of what is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case.

What is just and equitable must necessarily depend on the facts of each case. The Court of appeal in its seminal judgment in ANJ v ANK sets out a structured approach in determining a just and equitable division of matrimonial assets. The case of Twiss, Christopher James Hans v Twiss, Yonne Prendergast [2015] SGCA 53 at [17] summarized the approach as follows: Express as a ratio the parties’ direct contributions relative to each other, having regard to the amount of financial contribution each party has towards the acquisition or improvement of the matrimonial assets; Express as a second ration the parties’ indirect contributions relative to each other, having regard to both financial and non-financial contributions; and Derive the parties’ overall contributions relative to each other by taking an average of the two rations above (the derived ration shall be referred to as ‘the average ration’), keeping in mind that, depending on the circumstances of each case, the direct and indirect contributions may not be accorded equal weight, and one of the two rations may be accorded more significance than the other. Adjustments could also be made in respect of other relevant factors under s 112 or 114(1) of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) (‘the Charter’).

Direct contributions

Initially, parties contested quite extensively on the actual size of the matrimonial pool of assets with allegations and accusations made against each other. Eventually, to avoid more acrimony, counsel confirmed unequivocally that both parties agreed to drop hands on the various disputed items from the matrimonial pool and also accepted a global sum of $1,590,068 to be the assets for the division between them. The pool of matrimonial assets was confirmed at $1,590,068 in total. Parties also agreed that, taking guidance from the structured approach in the Court of Appeal’s decision in ANK, the direct contributions of the parties worked out overwhelmingly in the defendant husband’s favour at a ratio of 97: 3%.

Indirect contributions

What remained in contest between the parties was the percentage that the court would attribute, to the respective parties’ indirect contributions. The defendant husband asserted that, during the entire course of the marriage, he also made significant indirect financial contributions. As the sole breadwinner he paid for all family and household expenses as well as costs in respect of relocation and refurbishments whenever the family moved homes. He pointed out that although the wife had 3 jobs in the early stages of the marriage, she did not earn enough to assist with the family and household’s expenses, each of her employment tenures was brief because she lacked commitment and determination to work.

In relation to his indirect non-financial contributions, he said that he was a supportive husband to help the wife explore business ventures in childcare, home-wares and mobile phone accessories. And that during the wife’s pregnancies, he was there for her especially when she suffered 2 miscarriages. He provided emotional support for the wife whenever she needed it, which was fairly frequent. He literally put her emotional needs before his own. He enumerated the countless detailed support he gave to the children throughout the marriage and despite his heavy work schedule, he was not only involved in the major decision making but was also very involved in the day to day parenting duties. He planned their meals, enrolled the children in activities, saw to their kindergarten and the various parent-teacher meetings. The wife was only relied on to do relatively minor tasks, even then he found that his...