UFU (M.W.) v UFV

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Foo Tuat Yien JC
• Judgment Date: 25 September 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] SGHCF 23
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 18 November 2015,19 November 2015,21 October 2015,24 June 2016,09 January 2017,23 August 2016,18 September 2015,17 December 2015,10 November 2016
• Docket Number: Divorce Transfer No 4267 of 2012
• Plaintiff Counsel: Carrie Gill and Thian Wen Yi (Harry Elias Partnership LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: Josephine Chong and Esther Yeo (Josephine Chong LLC)
• Subject Matter: Family Law -Matrimonial assets -Division,Family Law,Maintenance -Wife,Maintenance -Child
• Published date: 11 May 2018

Foo Tuat Yien JC: Introduction

These grounds of decision deal with the ancillary matters under Part X of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) (“Women’s Charter”). The Wife is the Plaintiff in these proceedings, and the Husband is the Defendant. Much of the dispute centred on the division of matrimonial assets, which required the determination of many sub-issues relating to the identification of the asset pool. This was overall a 16-year marriage with four children. Parties had married on 23 October 1998. On 4 September 2012, the Wife filed for divorce. On 25 October 2012, she and the children moved out of the family home. Interim judgment was granted on 4 March 2014, some 19 months after the commencement of the divorce suit, on grounds of the Husband’s unreasonable behaviour. The divorce was based on an amended Statement of Particulars, which was accepted by the Husband.

Both parties have since appealed against the orders on ancillary matters that I made on 9 January 2017, in relation to: (a) the delineation, division, and distribution of their assets; (b) maintenance for the Wife; and (c) maintenance for the children. The relevant orders which form the subject of the parties’ appeals are as follows:

[Clause 3b] …

Division of assets

(i) The matrimonial assets of $10,782,223 are to be divided in the proportion of 62.5% for the Defendant and 37.5% for the Plaintiff. As the assets in the Plaintiff’s possession are valued at $1,555,617, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the balance of her share of $4,043,333 (computed at 0.375 of $10,782,223), being the sum of $2,487,716, plus an amount of $10,000 for the silver cutlery set, by end December 2016. Each party is to retain their respective assets in their sole names and the Plaintiff shall give the Defendant the silver cutlery set and the millennium bowl by end December 2016.

Plaintiff's maintenance

(ii) The Defendant shall pay $240,000 lump sum maintenance to the Plaintiff by end December 2016.

Maintenance for the Children

(iii) The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff $14,200 per month as maintenance for the Children, being maintenance for the Children’s share of household, maid and car expenses, and all the Children's expenses excluding those specifically listed at Clause (b)(iv) below. Should [C] go to boarding school, the Defendant shall pay $13,700 per month instead of $14,200 per month, beginning from the month after [C] goes to the UK. The maintenance is to be paid into the Plaintiff’s designated bank account DBS bank account no. XXXXXXX680 on or before the 5th day of every month commencing 5th December 2016. (iv) In addition, the Defendant shall also pay, by way of an advance, an amount of $12,000 per month into the Plaintiff’s designated bank account POSB Everyday Savings Account XXXXXX367 (the “Children’s Expenses Account”) on or before the 5th day of every month commencing 5th December 2016, for the following expenses of the Children. Arrangements shall be made for the following expenses to be paid by the Plaintiff out of this account: (A) School fees; (B) School bus transportation; (C) School CCAs, school outfits, school books, art supplies, piano books and piano tuning; (D) Private enrichment classes (as set out in ANNEX A and any additional enrichment classes for which the Defendant's consent has been obtained under Clause (b)(vii) below); (E) Miscellaneous school expenses (comprising amounts paid to the Children’s schools for the annual fee schedule, enrichment programs organised by the school, participation in competitions (academic and sports), school camps, school trips (overseas and local), purchase of additional books and reading materials directly from teachers, class photos, class t-shirts, CCA t-shirts, camp t-shirts, concert tickets (band, dance, etc.), car decal for the schools, access to educational websites, subscription to Chinese newspaper, magazine etc.); (F) Medical and dental expenses, including orthodontic treatment for the Children; and (G) [J]’s therapy and counselling for Asperger’s Syndrome. (v) The Plaintiff shall submit a 3monthly statement (in the case of the first statement, the statement shall cover the period of 1 December 2016 to 31 March 2017) for the amounts paid for the Children’s expenses listed in Clause (b)(iv) above to the Defendant at the end of March, June, September and December every year, commencing from March 2017, together with relevant supporting receipts. In the event that the amounts paid for the Children’s expenses listed in Clause (b)(iv) above exceed $36,000 for a quarter (in the case of the first period of 1 December 2016 to 31 March 2017, more than $48,000), the Defendant shall top up the difference within a month. In the event that the amounts paid for the Children’s expenses listed in Clause (b)(iv) above are below $36,000 for a quarter (in the case of the first period of 1 December 2016 to 31 March 2017, less than $48,000), the difference shall be offset from the Defendant’s next payment of $12,000, and if the difference exceeds $12,000, then it shall be offset against each subsequent payment until the difference shall be fully set off. Should [C] go to boarding school, the amount of $12,000 per month shall be reduced by the amount spent for [C] per month, beginning from the month after [C] goes to the UK. Upon the Children all reaching 21 years of age, any surplus remaining in the Children’s Expenses Account shall be paid back to the Defendant. (vi) The Defendant is to pay 50% of the net cost of a new replacement car equivalent to or approximating the existing Toyota Previa inclusive of COE. This is to be paid at the time when the current car is scrapped, or at any earlier time as may be agreed by parties. (vii) The Plaintiff is to obtain the Defendant’s consent, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld, before enrolling the Children in private enrichment classes and ECAs/CCAs additional to those in ANNEX A. If such consent is not obtained, the Plaintiff is solely liable for the cost of these additional expenses provided that these activities are not arranged during the Defendant’s access time with the Children, save for any activities that have been so arranged as of the date of this Order.

The monetary values stated in these grounds of decision are expressed in Singapore dollars, unless I expressly indicate otherwise.

Background facts The parties

At the time of my order on 9 January 2017, the Wife was 44 years old¹ and the Husband was 54 years old. The Wife, an Australian citizen, had moved to Singapore in May 1993 and became a Permanent Resident of Singapore in 1994. Her educational qualifications include a Masters of Business Administration degree from the University of Melbourne.² The Husband, on the other hand, is a British citizen and an employment pass holder in Singapore. He had come to Singapore to work in July 1994 at a major international firm that was part of a global network of professional services firms providing audit, tax and advisory services to multinational companies, governments and non-profit organisations. The Husband and the Wife met while they were both working in the firm. He was then a senior manager and, she was a second-year junior staff member. The parties subsequently married in October 1998.

In 1999, the Wife resigned from the firm. By that time she had risen through the ranks to become Head of the firm’s IT department. Subsequently, in 2001, the Wife became a full-time homemaker when the parties’ eldest child, C1, was born.³ She started working again only on 1 February 2016 as a Finance Officer in a real estate company. There, the Wife earns a basic salary of $2,300 a month, of which 9% of was pegged as a Monthly Variable Component. In addition to the income she receives from employment, the Wife also receives A$1,100 every month from the rental of a property in Australia held in her name.⁴

The Husband, on the other hand, is now a senior audit partner in the same firm and earns a substantial yearly income of $1.68m in Singapore.⁵ The Wife also indicated that the Husband holds several key appointments, including serving as the head of several of the firm’s practice groups and committees.⁶ With his skills and experience, he was well-placed to appreciate the need for him to place relevant information before the court to prove his claims in the delineation, division, and distribution of matrimonial assets, in particular on whether some of these assets were in fact his “pre-marital assets” that were to be excluded from the matrimonial pool.

Parties had lived separately from October 2012, when the Wife and the children left the family home. The Husband continues to live in the rented family home, a five-bedroom black-and-white bungalow of about 2,900 square feet, with a swimming pool and large garden, at a monthly rental of $13,500. The Wife, the four children and the domestic helper live in a 3+1 terrace house (ie, comprising three bedrooms and one hall) of about 1,700 square feet at a monthly rental of $7,056.

The children

The first three children from the marriage were born in quick succession in 2001, 2002 and 2004 whereas the fourth child was born in 2008, four years after the birth of the third child. At the time of my order on 9 January 2017, the first child, C1, was 15 years old, the second child, C2, was 14 years old, the third child, C3, was 12 years old and the fourth child, C4, was 8 years old.⁷ Although all four children from the marriage were born in Singapore, they hold dual citizenship of the UK and Australia. They have, however, lived in Singapore all their lives and attend local schools. One of the parties’ children, C2, was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (or Asperger’s Syndrome) in March 2005.⁸ Both C2 and C3 are also dyslexic.⁹

The parties’ roles in the marriage

...