Uwl v Uwm
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Tan Puay Boon JC |
| Judgment Date | 30 July 2019 |
| Docket Number | Divorce (Transferred) No 2254 of 2017 |
| Court | High Court (Singapore) |
[2019] SGHCF 17
Tan Puay Boon JC
Divorce (Transferred) No 2254 of 2017
High Court (Family Division)
Family Law — Maintenance — Wife seeking maintenance — Wife claiming business ventures failed — Whether wife entitled to maintenance
Family Law — Matrimonial assets — Division — Husband and wife separated — Wife leaving for China — Whether assets should be identified at date of separation or date of interim judgment
Held, making orders on the division of the matrimonial assets and ordering that there be no maintenance for the Wife:
(1) There were two distinct methodologies that had been applied in the case law in the division of matrimonial assets – the global assessment methodology and the classification methodology. Under the classification methodology, the court separately considered and divided classes of matrimonial assets. The classification methodology was the more appropriate methodology in this case given that one of the real properties owned by the parties carried a negative value: at [6] and [7].
(2) While the default date for the identification of assets was the date of the IJ, the marriage in this case had come to an end by the date of separation. The Wife had left for China after the Husband moved out of the matrimonial home. The parties did not have a child and thus led their own lives after the date of separation. Hence, the assets and liabilities would be identified at the date of separation: at [9], [13] and [15] to [17].
(3) The structured approach for the division of matrimonial assets laid out by the Court of Appeal in ANJ v ANK[2015] 4 SLR 1043 applied in this case. As the parties' marriage did not exist in any meaningful sense after the date of separation, only contributions up to the date of separation would be considered: at [41] and [44].
(4) This was a not a typical marriage because the parties did not have any children. The traditional division of labour between the breadwinner and the homemaker did not apply. Instead, both parties were very much focused on their careers. The Husband probably contributed more towards the payment of bills and other outgoing given his higher income, and he did household chores from October 2003 to August 2004 when he was searching for employment. He also cared for the Wife and her family to the best of his ability. On the other hand, the Wife supported the Husband when he first moved to Singapore and took care of the expenses when the Husband was unemployed. She cared for the Husband as well. In the circumstances, neither party contributed to a greater extent than the other. Thus, the court considered that parties made equal indirect contributions: at [47].
(5) The ratio of parties' financial contributions to the River Valley property were 60:40 in the Wife's favour. Taking into account parties' indirect contributions, the Wife was entitled to 55% of the net value of the River Valley property: at [45] and [48].
(6) The Marina property carried a negative net value. As this property was intended to be a joint investment, it would be fair for parties to bear the loss equally: at [49] and [51].
(7) The ratio of parties' financial contributions to the other assets were 54:46 in the Husband's favour. Taking into account parties' indirect contributions, the Husband was entitled to 52% of the value of these assets: at [55].
(8) The Wife was not entitled to maintenance. The Wife claimed that she needed maintenance because her business ventures in China had failed. However, these ventures were undertaken after the date of separation. A maintenance order should not be made to compensate parties for the vicissitudes of life and a spouse should not be turned into a general insurer of sorts of the other spouse. Thus, the Husband ought not to bear the consequences of the Wife's business decisions. Furthermore, the Wife was capable of earning substantial income: at [72] to [74].
AJR v AJS [2010] 4 SLR 617 (refd)
ANJ v ANK [2015] 4 SLR 1043 (folld)
AQT v AQU [2011] SGHC 138 (refd)
ARY v ARX [2016] 2 SLR 686 (refd)
ATE v ATD [2016] SGCA 2 (refd)
AUA v ATZ [2016] 4 SLR 674 (refd)
BRL v BRM CA 77/2018 (refd)
Foo Ah Yan v Chiam Heng Chow [2012] 2 SLR 506 (refd)
NK v NL [2007] 3 SLR(R) 743; [2007] 3 SLR 743 (refd)
TIT v TIU [2016] 3 SLR 1137 (refd)
TND v TNC [2017] SGCA 34 (refd)
UAP v UAQ [2018] 3 SLR 319 (refd)
UBD v UBE [2017] SGHCF 14 (refd)
UNE v UNF [2018] SGHCF 12 (refd)
The plaintiff (“the Husband”) and the defendant (“the Wife”) were married in China on 9 August 2002. The Wife was already living in Singapore at the time of the marriage. The Husband moved from China to Singapore in October 2003. The parties had no children. The Wife held a master's degree from a local university. She was employed as a senior information technology manager until she resigned in October 2012 to venture into business in China. She claimed that her businesses had failed and that she had no income. The Husband was a doctor and earned at least $23,000 a month. The Husband left the matrimonial home on 20 March 2013 and the parties had been living separately since 21 March 2013 (“the date of separation”). The Wife then left for China sometime in the later part of 2013. She only returned when the Husband filed for divorce. Interim judgment (“IJ”) was granted in August 2017.
Women's Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) ss 46, 112, 112(2)(f), 113, 114
Wong Soo Chih and Cheng Hiu Lam Larisa (Ho Wong Law Practice LLC) for the plaintiff;
Tan-Goh Song Gek Alice (A C Fergusson Law Corporation) for the defendant.
30 July 2019
Judgment reserved.
Tan Puay Boon JC:
1 The plaintiff (“the Husband”) and the defendant (“the Wife”) were married in China on 9 August 2002. The Wife was already living in Singapore at the time of the marriage. The Husband moved from China to Singapore in October 2003. The parties have no children.
2 The Wife holds a master's degree from a local university. She was employed as a senior information technology manager until she resigned in October 2012 to venture into business in China. She claims that her businesses have failed and that she has no income. The Husband is a doctor and earns at least $23,000 a month.
3 The Husband left the matrimonial home on 20 March 2013 and the parties have been living separately since 21 March 2013 (“the date of separation”). The Wife then left for China sometime in the later part of 2013, although it is not clear precisely when. She spent most of her time in China until the Husband filed for divorce in May 2017 on the basis of the parties' four years' separation. She returned to Singapore to participate in these proceedings. Interim judgment (“IJ”) was granted in August 2017. The parties were married for ten years when they separated and 15 years when IJ was granted.
4 The issues that are before me for determination are the division of the matrimonial assets, maintenance of the Wife and costs of the ancillary matters (“AM”) hearing.
5 Section 112 of the Women's Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the Women's Charter”) sets out the power of the court to order the division of matrimonial assets, and lays down the considerations that are to be taken into account when making the division. I keep these in mind when dividing the matrimonial assets.
6 In NK v NL[2007] 3 SLR(R) 743 (at [31]–[33]), the Court of Appeal discussed two distinct methodologies that have been applied in the case law in the division of matrimonial assets – the global assessment methodology and the classification methodology. The global assessment methodology “consists of four distinct phases: viz, identification, assessment, division and apportionment” (at [31]). The classification methodology involves “an assimilation of all four of the above steps into a broad judicial discretion which, in the first instance, separately considers and divides classes of matrimonial assets” [emphasis in original] (at [32]). The Court of Appeal explained that while there is “much to be said for either method, both of which are consistent with the legislative framework provided by s 112 of the [Women's Charter]”, in the final analysis, the court should apply the methodology that achieves the paramount aim of ensuring that the matrimonial assets are divided in a just and equitable manner (at [33]).
7 In the present case, I will adopt the classification methodology. I find this to be the more appropriate methodology given that one of the real properties owned by the parties carries a negative value. Thus, I will separately consider and divide the real properties from the other assets.
8 The parties have signed a joint summary of relevant information, which was last updated on 12 December 2018. I will refer to this version of the joint summary in this judgment.
9 The parties agree that the assets should be valued at the date of the AM hearing. I accept that this is an appropriate date: see TND v TNC and another appeal[2017] SGCA 34 at [19]. They, however, disagree on the date on which the assets should be identified. It is common ground that the default date is the IJ date: ARY v ARX and another appeal[2016] 2 SLR 686 (“ARY v ARX”) at [31]. This is because the IJ “puts an end to the marriage contract and indicates that the parties no longer intend to participate in the joint accumulation of matrimonial assets …”: AJR v AJS[2010] 4 SLR 617 at [4], cited with approval in ARY v ARX at [32]. Nevertheless, the court possesses the discretion to depart from that date in “deserving cases”, where they are “cogent reasons to do so”: ARY v ARX at [34]–[35].
10 The Husband submits that the assets should be identified at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
UYZ v UZA
...in Table 4 (submitted to the court at the hearing), adopts an indirect contributions ratio of 40:60 in favour of the wife. In UWL v UWM [2019] SGHCF 17, the High Court (Family Division) noted (at [47]) as follows: I note that this is a not a typical marriage because the parties do not have ......