UZN v UZM

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeSteven Chong JA
Judgment Date30 October 2020
Neutral Citation[2020] SGCA 109
Docket NumberCivil Appeal No 2 of 2020
Date30 October 2020
Published date05 November 2020
Plaintiff CounselAlfred Dodwell and Yap Pui Yee (Dodwell & Co LLC)
Defendant CounselSam Hui Min Lisa (Lisa Sam & Company)
CourtCourt of Appeal (Singapore)
Hearing Date07 August 2020
Subject MatterMatrimonial assets,Division,Family Law
Debbie Ong J (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction

The appellant (“the Wife”) and the respondent (“the Husband”) were married for 16 years before they were divorced in 2016. As there were no children in this marriage, the ancillary matters (“AMs”) revolved primarily around the division of the matrimonial assets in accordance with s 112 of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed). In dividing the assets, the High Court judge (“the Judge”) applied the structured approach in ANJ v ANK [2015] 4 SLR 1043 (“the ANJ structured approach”) and assessed the average ratio to be 68:32 in favour of the Husband: [2019] SGHCF 26 (“the Judgment”) at [76]. As the Judge found that the Husband had failed to make full and frank disclosure of his assets, he drew an adverse inference against him: the Judgment at [27]. To give effect to this adverse inference, the Judge adjusted the ratio by increasing it by 8% in favour of the Wife. The final ratio in the division order thus resulted in the Wife receiving 40% of the assets and the Husband 60%. The present appeal by the Wife concerns whether the Judge was correct to have given effect to the adverse inference in this manner, as well as the true extent to which the Husband has failed to disclose his assets.

The facts and the decision below

The Husband is a practising lawyer and an equity partner of a law firm which has been referred to in these proceedings as [P] LLP. From 2010 to August 2013, the Wife worked as an administrator at [P] LLP. According to the Wife, the parties fell out around August 2013 as a result of her discovery of the Husband’s adultery. Eventually, in November 2014, the Husband filed a writ for divorce and the Wife filed a counterclaim in December 2014. The interim judgment of divorce was granted on 24 March 2016 (“the IJ date”).

The pool of matrimonial assets

The Judge valued the pool of matrimonial assets at $1,908,602.19, comprising $372,372.41 of assets in the Wife’s name, and $1,536,229.78 of assets in the Husband’s name: the Judgment at [57]. The matrimonial assets that were liable to be divided under s 112 of the Women’s Charter were identified as at the IJ date and valued as at the date of the AM hearing (14 January 2019). The Judge made it clear that he included amongst the matrimonial assets the sums of money held in the parties’ various bank accounts as at the IJ date, and not the accounts themselves: the Judgment at [9].

There was a dispute over how the Husband’s earnings from [P] LLP ought to be reflected in the pool of matrimonial assets. It was not disputed that the Husband’s income from 2010 to 2016 totalled at least $4,549,959: the Judgment at [22]. For convenience, we will refer to this sum as the Husband’s “total earnings”, although it accounts only for his earnings over this seven-year period. The Wife’s submission before the Judge was that the Husband’s total earnings ought to be included in the pool in their entirety. On the other hand, the Husband tendered a report prepared by an accounting expert, Mr Wong Joo Wan (“Mr Wong”), to account for his expenditure of his total earnings so as to show why this large sum no longer formed part of his assets as at the IJ date. Mr Wong’s analysis assumes a great deal of importance because of the way in which the parties have run their cases on appeal, and we therefore set out below his tabulation of what the Husband’s cash balance ought to have been on 31 December 2016. We note that although 31 December 2016 was not the IJ date, the parties and the Judge were content to rely on Mr Wong’s analysis to determine whether the Husband had any assets which he had failed to disclose, and there is no challenge with regard to the use of this date.

In Mr Wong’s analysis, the Husband’s total expenditure from 2010 to 2016 was as follows:

S/N Item of expenditure Amount
1 Personal taxes, CPF and Medisave $811,451.60
2 Payments to Wife for investments $180,271.75
3 Joint account for conveyancing department $50,000.00
4 Down payment for car $30,000.00
5 Down payment for the 16G and 18G Properties $332,060.50
6 Living expenses $2,045,000.00
7 GST for [P] LLP $156,494.83
8 Pilgrimage trips $120,000.00
9 Gifts to various relatives $110,000.00
10 Traffic accident repairs $40,000.00
11 Astrological advice $40,000.00
12 Jewellery $20,000.00
13 Upkeep of [P] LLP $141,001.96
14 Legal costs for the divorce $45,000.00
15 Total expenditure $4,121,280.64

Deducting the Husband’s 2010–2016 expenditure from his total earnings of $4,549,959 over this same period, Mr Wong derived a balance sum of $428,678.36. According to Mr Wong, this sum ought to have been the Husband’s cash balance as at 31 December 2016.

The Judge observed that, according to the Husband, the total balance in all the Husband’s bank accounts as at 31 August 2016 (which was the closest date to the IJ date for which this information was available: see the Judgment at [9] and [17]) amounted to less than $500. The Judge found this suspicious in the light of the Husband’s considerable past earnings, as well as Mr Wong’s own conclusion that the Husband should have had a cash balance of $428,678.36: the Judgment at [26]–[27]. In fact, the Judge went further and expressly rejected certain items of expenditure which Mr Wong had included in his analysis – namely, the amounts spent on pilgrimage trips, gifts to various relatives, traffic accident repairs, and astrological advice (S/N 8–11 of the table above), totalling $310,000. He also rejected the Husband’s assertion that his yearly living expenses from 2010 to 2016 were between $280,000 and $320,000, adding up to $2,045,000. Mr Wong had taken this amount of living expenses into account in his calculations (see S/N 6 of the table above) even though, on Mr Wong’s own analysis, he had taken the view that only a total of $1,163,162.68 of living expenses from 2010 to 2016 could be substantiated. (To be clear, when we refer to the term “living expenses” in the remainder of this judgment, its scope follows that in Mr Wong’s analysis, in contrast with the other items of expenditure incurred by the Husband outside of this category.) Given the discrepancy between the Husband’s disclosed bank balances and his total earnings, the Judge drew an adverse inference against the Husband.

It is worth noting that the Judge also drew an adverse inference against the Wife, albeit on a significantly smaller scale: the Judgment at [41]. This stemmed from arguments over an amount of slightly over $300,000 which the Husband had placed in one of the Wife’s bank accounts. The Judge found that the Wife could account for her expenditure of the entirety of this sum, except for $10,500 which she claimed had been withdrawn to pay for her legal fees in relation to the divorce. The Judge drew an adverse inference against the Wife for failing to provide documentary evidence of this expenditure. In any event, the Judge observed that legal fees incurred in the matrimonial proceedings could not be deducted from the matrimonial pool (citing UFU (M.W.) v UFV [2017] SGHCF 23 (“UFU”) at [105]). He therefore returned a “rough figure” of $10,000 to the matrimonial pool (which was included in the Wife’s total assets of $372,372.41 as stated at [3] above): the Judgment at [32]–[41].

The Judge’s orders on the division of matrimonial assets and maintenance

The Judge applied the ANJ structured approach in dividing the matrimonial assets: the Judgment at [58]–[76]. He found the ratio of direct financial contributions to be 86:14 in favour of the Husband. In the light of the fact that the Husband had made larger indirect financial contributions and the Wife had made more significant indirect non-financial contributions, the Judge found the ratio of indirect contributions to be 50:50. As a result, the overall average ratio of the parties’ contributions to the marriage was 68:32 in favour of the Husband.

The Judge then adjusted the overall ratio by 8% in favour of the Wife to account for the Husband’s undisclosed assets: the Judgment at [76]. The final ratio was therefore 60:40 in favour of the Husband. This resulted in the Wife being entitled to 40% or $763,440.88 of the pool of matrimonial assets, and the Husband $1,145,161.31.

The Judge further ordered the Husband to pay the Wife a monthly maintenance of $3,000 for 18 months, to account for the period of time before she was able to resume gainful employment: the Judgment at [83].

The issues on appeal

The Husband has not filed an appeal against the Judge’s decision. The Wife raises two key issues in this appeal: First, whether the Judge was correct in his findings on the Husband’s expenditure and therefore the extent to which the Husband has failed to disclose his assets. Second, how the court should give effect to the adverse inference against the Husband.

The Wife submits that beyond those items of expenditure which the Judge did not accept, there were other items of the Husband’s expenditure in Mr Wong’s analysis which should also have been rejected. These were the purported sums of $20,000 spent on jewellery, $141,001.96 spent on the upkeep of [P] LLP, and $45,000 spent on legal costs for the divorce (S/N 12–14 of the table at [5] above). As a result, the Wife contends that the value of the Husband’s undisclosed assets was even greater than that found by the Judge.

The Wife argues that because the amount of cash that should have been part of the Husband’s assets could be quantified based on Mr Wong’s analysis and whether each of the contested items of expenditure is accepted or rejected, the total value of the Husband’s undisclosed assets could be determined, and the correct approach to give effect to the adverse...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • VYT v VYU
    • Singapore
    • Family Court (Singapore)
    • 22 December 2021
    ...be an in personam order, which can be enforced against that party with greater ease. Potential Clawbacks under TNL Dicta In UZN v UZM [2020] SGCA 109, Justice Debbie Ong further clarified on this at [62] to [68]. Putative matrimonial assets not to be expended under the “TNL dicta” Apart fro......
  • VSN v VSO
    • Singapore
    • Family Court (Singapore)
    • 18 June 2021
    ...“TNL dicta” The Law on Adverse Inference The law on adverse inference was recently clarified in the Court of Appeal case of UZN v UZM [2020] SGCA 109 (“UZN v UZM”). This was a case that was specifically highlighted to both the Husband’s and Wife’s Counsel to address the Court on in the 2nd ......
  • VSN v VSO
    • Singapore
    • Family Court (Singapore)
    • 18 June 2021
    ...“TNL dicta” The Law on Adverse Inference The law on adverse inference was recently clarified in the Court of Appeal case of UZN v UZM [2020] SGCA 109 (“UZN v UZM”). This was a case that was specifically highlighted to both the Husband’s and Wife’s Counsel to address the Court on in the 2nd ......
  • VHW v VHX
    • Singapore
    • Family Court (Singapore)
    • 15 June 2022
    ...that no date or approximate date had been provided. The law on adverse inference was clarified in the Court of Appeal case of UZN v UZM [2020] SGCA 109 (“UZN v UZM”). The Court of Appeal provided a succinct summary on the legal principles on the drawing of an adverse inference in Ancillary ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Family Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2020, December 2020
    • 1 December 2020
    ... TDT v TDS [2016] 4 SLR 145 at [61]. 106 TND v TNC [2017] SGCA 34 at [36]. 107 USB v USA [2020] 2 SLR 588 at [34]. 108 [2021] 1 SLR 426. 109 UZN v UZM [2021] 1 SLR 426 at [12]–[14]. 110 UZN v UZM [2021] 1 SLR 426 at [16]. 111 UZN v UZM [2021] 1 SLR 426 at ......
  • Family Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2021, December 2021
    • 1 December 2021
    ...[32]–[36]. 86 [2020] 2 SLR 588. 87 CLT v CLS [2021] SGHCF 29 at [20]–[22]. 88 CLT v CLS [2021] SGHCF 29 at [27]–[31] and [32]–[37]. 89 [2021] 1 SLR 426. 90 UZN v UZM [2021] 1 SLR 426 at [62]. 91 CLT v CLS [2021] SGHCF 29 at [41]–[43]. 92 CLT v CLS [2021] SGHCF 29 at [47]. 93 CLT v CLS [2021......

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