UQZ v URA

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Judge: Chia Wee Kiat
• Judgment Date: 08 February 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] SGFC 17
• Citation: [2019] SGFC 17
• Hearing Date: 08 January 2019,04 October 2018,16 October 2018,06 September 2018
• Published date: 15 February 2019
• Year: 2019
• Docket Number: FC/D 4133/2016
• Plaintiff Counsel: Lee Mong Jen (LMJ Law Corporation)
• Defendant Counsel: Tan Kwee Sain Pauline (P Tan & Co)
• Subject Matter: Family law,Division of Matrimonial Assets

District Judge Chia Wee Kiat: Background facts

On 8 January 2019, I delivered my written grounds of decision (“the GD”) vide UQZ v URA [2019] SGFC 2 in respect of the ancillary matters in this divorce suit. As noted in the GD, this is a complicated matrimonial litigation involving complex questions of law and fact, multiple assets and deep-seated emotional issues. There were changes and clarifications made in the course of the ancillary hearing which necessitated the filing of a revised Joint Summary and the parties’ respective updated computation of assets and proposed division.

In giving my decision, I drew counsel’s attention to BOR v BOS [2018] SGCA 78 (at [32]) where the Court of Appeal underscored the importance of counsel providing suitable assistance to the court in complicated matrimonial litigation and this includes where possible, informing the judge of any clear, uncontroversial errors in his or her decision, so that the judge can correct such inadvertent errors before the decision is appealed. I had, as reflected in paragraph 123 of the GD, invited counsel to highlight such errors, if any, to me within a week of the decision.

On 23 January 2019, the Wife’s counsel wrote to the court to highlight a computational error in the pool of matrimonial assets. The material parts at paragraph 4 of the letter state as follows: (1) On the ANZ investment account, at paragraph 92 of the Grounds of Decision, the court ruled that “it was more appropriate to treat the sum of $85,000 extended by the Wife as her direct contribution to the acquisition of the Universal Life Policy. This would allow for a just and equitable apportionment of the loss in the value of the Universal Life Policy.” (2) Based on the Husband’s contribution of $75,000 and the Wife’s contribution $85,000 towards the Universal Life Policy under the ANZ investment account in the Husband’s name, which value stands at $106,617.51, the Wife’s direct proportionate contribution to ANZ investment account is 53.1% (85,000/160,000) x $106,617.51 = $56,640.55. The Husband’s direct proportionate contribution is 46.9% (75,000/160,000) x $106,617.51 = $49,976.96. (3) However, at paragraph 96 of the Grounds of Decision, the entire value of $106,617.51 for the ANZ investment account was credited under the Husband’s assets, and no credit was given to the Wife in respect of her direct contribution for this item. The sum of $56,640.55 should be attributed to the Wife from the Husband’s assets, similar to manner of attributing $14,716 to the Wife...