UII v UIJ

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeDarryl Soh
Judgment Date08 January 2018
Neutral Citation[2018] SGFC 1
CourtFamily Court (Singapore)
Hearing Date04 October 2017
Docket NumberDivorce 2361 of 2016
Plaintiff CounselW. K. Fong (M/s W.K. Fong & Co)
Defendant CounselJamie Neo (M/s Hoh Law Corporation)
Subject MatterFamily law,Ancillary matters,Division of assets,Wife's maintenance,Children's maintenance
Published date25 January 2018
District Judge Darryl Soh: Introduction

This matter concerns ancillary reliefs arising from divorce proceedings between the Plaintiff-Wife (“the Wife”) and the Defendant-Husband (“the Husband”) (collectively referred to as “the Parties”). The Parties contested the financial aspects relating to the divorce – the division of the matrimonial home and the maintenance for the Wife and the children. The Wife appealed against the orders I made. In these grounds, I explain my decision on those orders in greater detail.

Background Facts

The Parties were married on 28 June 1988 in Malaysia. The Wife is a 49 year-old cleaner earning a monthly salary of $1,000.00. The Husband is a 54 year-old driver and project coordinator earning a monthly salary of $3,050.00. The Parties have two children – a 27 year-old son (“the First Child”) and a 20 year-old daughter (“the Second Child”) (collectively referred to as “the Children”). At the time of the proceedings, only the Second Child was a minor.

The Wife commenced divorce proceedings against the Husband on 17 May 2016 on the grounds that the marriage has broken down irretrievably as the Husband had behaved in a way that the Wife cannot reasonably be expected to live with the Husband. Interim Judgment was granted on an uncontested basis on 30 June 2016. The length of the Parties’ marriage was consequently 28 years.

Issues in Dispute and Decision

The Parties were in agreement on the care issues relating to the minor child, i.e. the Second Child. By consent, the Parties were granted joint custody of the Second Child with care and control to the Wife. The Husband was granted reasonable access to the Second Child. In addition, the Parties agreed that they were to retain their own assets in their respective names and possession.

The remaining ancillary issues contested concerned the financial aspects relating to the divorce. Having considered the Parties’ respective submissions and affidavits, I ordered the following: The Matrimonial Home is to be sold in the open market within six months of the Final Judgment. The net proceeds of sale, after deducting the costs and expenses of the sale, shall be divided equally. Each Party is to refund their respective CPF account from their share of the net proceeds of sale, in accordance with CPF rules. The Husband shall pay the Wife the following amounts monthly with effect from 31 October 2017 and thereafter on the last day of successive months into the Wife’s bank account: $1.00 for the Wife; and $600.00 for the Second Child. Liberty to apply.

The Wife appealed against the above orders.

Division of the Matrimonial Home

By agreement, the only matrimonial asset the Parties submitted to the court for division was their Matrimonial Home. It was a HDB Flat valued at $300,000.00.

Just and Equitable Division of the Matrimonial Pool of Assets

Section 112(1) of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the Charter”) provides the court with the power when granting or subsequent to the grant of a judgment of divorce to order the division between the parties of any matrimonial asset or the sale of any such asset and the division between the parties of the proceeds of the sale of any such asset in such proportions as the court thinks just and equitable. The guiding principles of exercising this power are set out in s. 112(2) of the Charter: the extent of the contributions made by each party in money, property or work towards acquiring, improving or maintaining the matrimonial assets; any debt owing or obligation incurred or undertaken by either party for their joint benefit or for the benefit of any child of the marriage; the needs of the children (if any) of the marriage; the extent of the contributions made by each party to the welfare of the family, including looking after the home or caring for the family or any aged or infirm relative or dependant of either party; any agreement between the parties with respect to the ownership and division of the matrimonial assets made in contemplation of divorce; any period of rent-free occupation or other benefit enjoyed by one party in the matrimonial home to the exclusion of the other party; the giving of assistance or support by one party to the other party (whether or not of a material kind), including the giving of assistance or support which aids the other party in the carrying on of his or her occupation or business; and the matters referred to in section 114(1) so far as they are relevant.

In its decision in ANJ v ANK [2015] 4 SLR 1043 (“ANJ v ANK”), the Court of Appeal laid out a structured approach for the division of matrimonial assets. However, in their subsequent decision in TNL v TNK [2017] 1 SLR 609 (“TNL v TNK”) at [46], the Court of Appeal took the view that the structured approach in ANJ v ANK should not be applied to single-income marriages. The court also went on to agree at [48] with precedent cases on the equal division of matrimonial assets in long single-income marriages. In the present case, the Parties were married for approximately 28 years until Interim Judgment was granted.

There was no dispute that the marriage...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT