VRB v VRC

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Toh Wee San
• Judgment Date: 26 April 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] SGFC 45
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: D 151 of 2019
• Year: 2021
• Published date: 06 May 2021
• Hearing Date: 14 January 2021,21 December 2020,14 December 2020,13 November 2020
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ms Bernice Loo and Ms Amanda Chua (Allen & Gledhill LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Justin Chan and Ms Jaspreet Kaur (Tito Isaac & Co LLP)
• Subject Matter: Ancillary Matters, Division of Assets, Adverse Inference and Wife's Maintenance
• Citation: [2021] SGFC 45

District Judge Toh Wee San: Background facts

The parties were married in France on 1 June 1991. There are three daughters to the marriage, aged 26, 24 and 21. The daughters live in XXX, XXX. The daughters are working, except the youngest who is in university.

The Plaintiff-wife is 58 years old and holds dual XXX citizenship. She is currently unemployed. The Defendant-husband is 57 years old. He is a XXX citizen and the XXX of a Multinational Corporation. Both parties became Singapore Permanent Residents in September 2012. The Plaintiff shall be referred to as the “Wife” and the Defendant shall be referred to as the “Husband”.

During the marriage, parties resided at various countries such as XXX for the Husband’s work. Parties moved to Singapore in August 2010. By mid-2015, all the children were no longer residing in Singapore and were based in XXX. Sometime in February 2017, the Wife moved out of the matrimonial home and travelled between XXX and Singapore, staying with friends and family.

On 9 January 2019, the Wife commenced divorce proceedings. Interim Judgment (IJ) was granted on 2 May 2019 based on the Wife’s unreasonable behaviour. Parties had also recorded their agreement on the minor child’s care and living arrangements and maintenance for the child in the Interim Judgment.

The remaining ancillary matters were contested and the issues to be determined included the following: - Division of matrimonial assets; and Maintenance for the wife.

The matter was placed before me for hearing on 13 November, 14 December and 21 December 2020. After reviewing evidence before me, I made the ancillary matters orders on 14 January 2021. In short, I ordered equal division of the assets and some maintenance for the Wife before the AM hearing. A copy of the orders is attached.

The Husband filed an appeal against my decision and I now provide my decisions and reasons below, according to the issues contested by them.

Issue 1: Operative date for the determination of the list of assets The Husband’s case

The Husband submitted that the operative date should be the date of separation (i.e. February 2017) when the Wife moved out of the matrimonial home.

The Husband referred to Wong Kien Keong v Khoo Hoon Eng [2013] SGHC 275; [2014] 1 SLR 1342 (“Wong Kien Keong”) at [100] where the High Court reiterated that there were multiple dates that the Court could adopt as the operative date. In that case, the High Court adopted the date that the Deed of Separation was signed as the date of separation and the operative date for determination of the matrimonial pool.

The Husband argued that the present case was similar to Wong Kien Keong in that parties’ relationship had already deteriorated sometime in mid-2012¹. The Husband had also started sleeping in the daughter’s bedroom when she moved to university. Notwithstanding this, the Husband argued that it was clear that parties were no longer a union and had moved on with different partners when the Wife moved out in February 2017².

The Wife’s case

The Wife disagreed with the Husband and submitted that the operative date should be the date of the IJ (i.e. May 2019) as there were no cogent reasons to depart from the default position as reiterated by the Court of Appeal in BPC v BPB and another appeal [2019] SGCA 3; [2019] 1 SLR 608 at [23].

The Wife also referred me to ARY x ARX and another appeal [2016] SGCA 13; [2016] 2 SLR 686 where the Court of Appeal stated at [40] that separation is an ordinary factual concomitant of a failed marriage. If the date of separation was accepted, then it would the operative date for every divorce which would confuse the position at law. The Wife also distinguished the present case from Wong Kien Keong whereby the parties in that case had signed a Deed of Separation that signified parties’ very intent to separate.

The Court’s decision on operative date

I adopted the IJ date i.e. 2 May 2019 as the operative date of list of assets. This is the default position unless exceptional facts merit a departure. The Husband’s counsel argued that parties separated before IJ and led separate lives with their new partners, hence meriting a departure. I was not persuaded. If this was the case, all divorces based on separation would have to adopt the separation and not the IJ date as the operative date. This is not the legal position. Moreover, parties were looking after their joint property in XXX. They were also in contact and caring for their children who reside overseas.

Issue 2: Division of matrimonial assets Parties’ position on list of matrimonial assets and value

Parties’ position on the pool of matrimonial assets and their respective values are based on the Joint Summary (dated 9 December 2020) filed on 17 December 2020. They are as follows: -

S/n	Asset	Husband’s value	Wife’s value
Assets held in joint names
1.	The XXX property	S$450,000	S$578,000
2.	HSBC Joint Account ending 496	Agreed to be S$451.28
Assets held in Husband’s sole name
3.	XXX unexercised stock options	S$291,104.73 less tax liability of S$64,043.04 = S$227,061.69	S$291,104.73
4.	XXX share plans, vested securities, equity award and stock options	Agreed to be S$0
5.	HSBC (Singapore) Accounts ending 496 and 221	S$724,332.82 less tax liability of XXX share paid from this account amounting to S$76,171.63 = S$648,161.19	S$724,332.82
6.	XXX Unit Trusts (India, Mining…)	Agreed to be S$47,243.67
7.	XXX Bank Account ending 986	Agreed to be S$647,756.10
8.	XXX bank shares (Ingenico, Orpea, Safran)	Agreed to be S$104,819.38
9.	XXX Bank Accounts	Agreed to be S$528,594.44
10.	XXX, Unit Trust)	Agreed to be S$67,492.88
11.	XXX Unit Trusts savings plan ending 972	Agreed that the asset no longer existed as at date of IJ
12.	XXX Account ending 172	Agreed to be S$0
13.	XXX Account ending 378	Agreed to be S$381.27
14.	Krungthai Bank Public Company Limited Account ending 758	S$31,032.91 (THB 709,101.97)	S$43,376.67 (THB 960,794.20)
15.	CPF Accounts	Agreed to be S$245,538
16.	XXX Cabriolet XXX	Agreed to be S$35,000
17.	XXX Club Membership	S$37,450	S$64,690
18.	XXX Account ending 734	Agreed to be S$75,708
19.	XXX Account ending 849	Agreed to be S$4,490.74
20.	XXX Account ending 713	Agreed to be S$273.61
21.	Inheritance from H’s late XXX	S$100,154.12 (€66,082.16) but should not form part of matrimonial pool	-
22.	Inheritance from H’s late XXX	$37,586.88 (€24,800.00) but should not form part of matrimonial pool	-
23.	Gain in profits from inheritance from H’s late XXX and late XXX	S$45,468.00 (€30,000) but should not form part of matrimonial pool	-
24.	XXX account ending with 172	S$0	-
25.	The XXX property	Excluded from matrimonial pool	S$155,385.50 (€102,904.50)
26.	The XXX Provence property	Excluded from matrimonial pool	S$207,179.55 (€137,205)
27.	French Retirement Fund	Parties were unable to ascertain.
Assets held in Wife’s sole name
28.	CPF Accounts	Agreed to be S$6,640.34
29.	XXX Account ending 061	Agreed to be S$10,770.08
30.	XXX Account ending 759	Agreed to be S$18,322
31.	XXX Insurance policy ending 4/10	NA

Husband’s position on the division of assets

In respect of the division of matrimonial assets, the Husband referred to TNL v TNK [2017] SGCA 15 (“TNL v TNK”) where the Court of Appeal clarified that in long single-income marriage, the Courts tend towards an equal division of matrimonial assets³.

Despite this, the Husband argued that it would not be just and equitable in this present case to accord an equal division of the matrimonial assets to the parties. His reasons were as follows⁴: - The Wife did not make substantive contributions by increasing the value of the matrimonial assets and had in fact placed parties in the position of a loss for the XXX property as it was the significant investment that the Wife wanted to acquire; Little of the Wife’s income during her part-time work up to 2016 was used towards the family’s expenses; Even though the Husband was the primary breadwinner, he raised the children and took care of the family with the Wife; The Wife had the assistance of the Husband’s mother or the assistance of a helper coupled with a chauffeur for 7 years; Credit ought to be given to the Husband for the investments he made which increased the pool of assets; and An adverse inference should be drawn against the Wife for her failure to disclose documents that were incriminating towards her.

Accordingly, the Husband submitted that the pool of matrimonial assets should be divided in the proportion of 60% in favour of him and 40% in favour of the Wife⁵.

Wife’s position on the division of assets

The Wife similarly referred to TNL v TNK and submitted that since this was a single-income marriage that subsisted for 28 years, the ratio for division would minimally be 50:50⁶.

The Wife claimed that she had made significant non-financial contributions to the family when she gave up her promising career prospects and followed her Husband to his home country. The Wife argued that she was a trailing spouse who had relocated several times during the marriage for the Husband’s job which facilitated and enabled the Husband’s career success at the expense of her own⁷. In addition, the Husband travelled frequently and she was often the parent who had to run the household and provide care for the three children⁸. The Wife had also invited the Court to draw an adverse inference...