VPM v VPL

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Wendy Yu
• Judgment Date: 18 April 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] SGFC 35
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 03 December 2021,22 October 2021,12 January 2022
• Docket Number: Divorce No 2592 of 2020
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ms June Lim/ Ms Loh Ya Xin (M/s Eden Law Corporation)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Koh Tien Hua/ Ms Deseree Oon (M/s Harry Elias Partnership LLP)
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Maintenance,Custody Care and Control,Division of Matrimonial Assets
• Published date: 22 April 2022

District Judge Wendy Yu: Introduction

The Parties were married on 29 September 2009¹. The Defendant was a self-employed businessman² while the Plaintiff was a homemaker during the marriage. The Plaintiff is currently working as a cleaner³ while the Defendant is retired⁴. The Plaintiff is from China and holds a Long Term Visit Pass (“LTVP”).⁵ The parties have 2 children, XXX, female, born on XX December 2009 (“Child 1”) and XXX, female, born on XX October 2015 (“Child 2”)⁶.

The Plaintiff had first left the matrimonial home sometime in June 2018⁷, taking Child 2 along with her⁸. The Plaintiff and Child 2 have been living at a shelter since then. Parties had signed a Immediate Safety Plan with the Child Protection Services on 28 June 2018⁹. The Child Protective Services were involved with the family until October 2019.¹⁰

The Plaintiff filed for divorce (D 2592/2020) on 30 June 2020 and the divorce proceeded on an uncontested basis, with the Interim Judgment being granted on 15 January 2021 on the unreasonable behaviour of both parties.

Background & History of Multiple Applications

On 25 October 2018, the Defendant and the Plaintiff were granted a Personal Protection Order (“PPO”) against each other¹¹. Both parties also filed PPO applications against each other, for the children, but these applications were withdrawn on 19 September 2019¹².

The Defendant had filed an OSG application (OSG XX/2020) on 17 April 2020 asking for, inter alia, the sole custody, care and control of the children. I had dismissed the application. The Defendant had then filed an appeal (DCA XX/2021) against my decision. The Honourable Justice Choo Han Teck (“Choo J”) had heard the appeal on 12 July 2021 and Choo J made no orders on the appeal save that the parties proceed promptly to have the ancillary matters heard and that the issues raised in OSG XX of 2020 may be re-considered by at the Court hearing of the ancillaries.

The Defendant had also filed an application for an injunction (SUM XXX/2020) on 18 May 2020 seeking the handover of Child 2 to the Defendant’s sole care and control. This application was dismissed on 9 June 2020.

The Defendant had then filed an application (SUM XXX/2020) on 30 June 2020 for, inter alia, interim sole care and control of Child 2. Parties reached an interim arrangement on the issue of access and entered into a Consent Order on 6 July 2020.

Two other interim applications were filed by the Defendant after the Consent Order was made- one of which was FC/SUM XXX/2020, an injunction application on 27 August 2020 for interim care and control for both children after a COVID-19 scare occurred at the crisis shelter where the Plaintiff resided at. The Defendant had also filed FC/SUM XXX/2020, a variation application, on 2 November 2020, for, inter alia, orders that the Defendant’s unsupervised access to Child 1 has to take place in a 4-star hotel or equivalent accommodation. Both applications were dismissed.

The ancillary matters were heard on 22 October 2021 and 3 December 2021. Having considered the Parties’ evidence and submissions, I made following orders on 12 January 2022: The Plaintiff and the Defendant shall be granted joint custody of the children of the marriage, namely XXX (BC No. TXXXX913E) (“Child 1”) and XXX (BC No. TXXXX025I) (“Child 2”) (collectively referred to as “children”), with care and control of Child 1 to the Defendant and care and control of Child 2 to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff shall have overnight access to Child 1 from Fridays 8.00PM to Saturdays 8.00PM and the Defendant shall have overnight access to Child 2 from Saturdays 8.00PM to Sundays 8.00PM. The access arrangement shall not be affected by public holidays (save for Chinese New Year holidays which shall be elaborated below) and school holidays. For May/June and November/December school holidays, parties are at liberty to bring the children overseas for up to 14 days per school holiday period. The party bringing the children overseas shall provide the other party with at least 2 weeks’ advanced notice, along with the travel itinerary, accommodation details and emergency contact information. The travelling party shall also ensure that the children remain contactable by the other party via electronic means during the trip. For Chinese New Year (“CNY”), for even years beginning in 2022, the Defendant shall spend CNY Eve to 6.00PM of CNY Day 1 with the children while the Plaintiff shall spend 6.00PM of CNY Day 1 to CNY Day 2 with the children. For odd years, the Plaintiff shall spend CNY Eve to 6.00PM of CNY Day 1 with the children while the Defendant shall spend 6.00PM of CNY Day 1 to CNY Day 2 with the children. Both parties are not to interfere with the other party’s access such that there are no unauthorised visits or miscellaneous items brought into access with the other party unless declared upfront. Medications for the children’s atopic conditions should be made available at each party’s residence. Both parties are not to film the children’s interactions with the other parent. Any concerns regarding the children must be brought up to the counsellor or parent coordinator at the appointed DSSA. Parties are not to make any unauthorised changes to the access arrangement without prior consent of the other party. A minimum of two days’ advanced notice of any temporary changes to the access arrangement must be given. Handovers are to proceed as per current access arrangements in a neutral location (i.e Novena Medical Centre) at the specified times, unless agreed otherwise by both parties. Both parties and the children are to be referred to counselling at DSSA and to attend the Children-in-Between programme. Official personal records such as birth certificates, passports, and school health booklets are to be kept with the parent who has care and control of the child. The care and control parent shall also be named trustee of the child’s Child Development Account (“CDA”). Accordingly, the Defendant shall hand over Child 2’s documents to the Plaintiff and effect the change of trustee for the CDA within 7 days from the date of this Order. The parties shall return to Court in 6 months’ time for a review of the access arrangements. The DSSA and Children-in-Between shall furnish a report on the parent’s access arrangements and progress in co-parenting before the review. The Defendant is to pay the Plaintiff cash payment of $183,805.53 as the Plaintiff’s share of the matrimonial assets. The payment shall be made within 3 months from the date of the Final Judgment into the Plaintiff’s OCBC Account No. XXX-X-XXX349¹³. Parties are to retain assets in their respective names. There shall be no maintenance payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff a monthly sum for the maintenance of Child 2 with effect from 31 January 2022 and thereafter on the last day of each subsequent month into the Plaintiff’s OCBC Account No. XXX-X-XXX349. The Defendant shall maintain Child 1 solely. The Plaintiff shall bear the expenses of Child 1 whenever she has access to Child 1. Both parties to bear own costs. Liberty to apply.

The Defendant has filed an appeal against all of my orders. The reasons for my decision are set out below.

Issue (a) - Division of Matrimonial Assets The Plaintiff’s position

The Plaintiff had submitted that the global assessment methodology should be used in the division of matrimonial assets¹⁴ and that this was a case where the structured approach set out in ANJ v ANK [2015] 4 SLR 1043 (“ANJ v ANK”) is not applicable because only the Defendant was the sole income earner while the Plaintiff played the role of the homemaker, following the case of TNL v TNK [2017] SGCA 15 (“TNL v TNK”).

It is not disputed that the Defendant had sold the matrimonial home at Blk XXX Jurong West XXX Singapore XXX (“the Jurong West Flat”) in June 2019¹⁵. The Defendant had purchased a condominium at XXX Chua Chu Kang XXX, XXX Singapore XXX (“Chua Chu Kang Property”) in June 2018¹⁶ where he is still living at in now.

Even though the Jurong West Flat was paid for by the Defendant’s parents, the Defendant has co-owned the Jurong West Flat as joint tenant since 2004 and acquired sole ownership of the flat in 2015 upon the parent’s demise¹⁷. The Plaintiff therefore asserted that the Jurong West Flat was parties’ matrimonial home during the marriage and parties lived in the Jurong West Flat throughout the marriage. The Plaintiff argued that, by the definition of “matrimonial asset” set out in s 112(10) of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the Charter”), the Jurong West Flat should be considered a matrimonial asset even though it was acquired by way of inheritance.¹⁸ The Jurong West Flat was sold sometime in mid-2019 after the Plaintiff moved out and the Defendant received nett sale proceeds of $547,561.52 which, the Plaintiff contended, should all be included in the pool of matrimonial assets¹⁹.

The Plaintiff had initially submitted that the nett value of the Defendant’s motor vehicle should be included in the matrimonial pool.²⁰ However, that position changed²¹ after the first hearing on 22 October 2021 when parties agreed that the date of determining what should be included in the pool of matrimonial assets should be the date of separation and not the date of Interim Judgment (i.e 15 January 2021). Parties, however, had different views as to when the date of separation was. The Plaintiff argued that the date of separation should be on 10 July 2018²². The Plaintiff had conceded at the first hearing on 22 October 2021 that the value of the Defendant’s vehicle and the Chua Chu Kang Property should not be included in the matrimonial pool of assets as they were acquired after the date of separation²³ and I accepted the Plaintiff’s concession.

The Plaintiff also asserted that her OCBC bank account was opened after she moved out...