Wfe v Wff

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Kannan Ramesh JAD,Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD,Aedit Abdullah J
• Judgment Date: 28 April 2023
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 61 of 2022
• Court: High Court Appellate Division (Singapore)

WFE

and

WFF

[2023] SGHC(A) 16

Kannan Ramesh JAD, Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD and Aedit Abdullah J

Civil Appeal No 61 of 2022

Appellate Division of the High Court

Family Law — Matrimonial assets — Division — Husband and wife contributing to matrimonial home — Determination of parties' direct contributions — Gifting versus sharing — Whether intention of spouse to share asset affected analysis of spouse's direct contributions in application of structured approach under ANJ v ANK[2015] 4 SLR 1043 — Section 112(2) Women's Charter 1961 (2020 Rev Ed)

Family Law — Matrimonial assets — Division — Husband and wife contributing to matrimonial home — Determination of parties' direct contributions — Whether spouse's beneficial ownership or property rights in matrimonial assets affected analysis of spouse's direct contributions to said assets in application of structured approach under ANJ v ANK[2015] 4 SLR 1043 — Section 112(2) Women's Charter 1961 (2020 Rev Ed)

Held, allowing the appeal in part:

Identification of matrimonial assets

(1) In respect of the CDP Account, there was no basis to disturb the Judge's determination that the CDP Account was a matrimonial asset. W had not provided the evidence to show that the funds in the CDP Account were traceable to her inheritance moneys. W's reliance on a substantial sum of moneys that she allegedly received from the sale of two inherited properties that were then invested into the securities held in the CDP Account, was clearly part of her attempt to bolster her case as it would be more believable that the substantial value of the CDP Account arose from a larger sum of moneys. It was surprising that W omitted to adduce the evidence concerning the moneys received from the sale of the two inherited properties or make this argument before the Judge given that this might have significantly strengthened her case on this front. In any event, the documents adduced in support of this claim did not remedy the lacuna in her case that there was no evidence that she used moneys from her inheritance (including the proceeds from the sale of the two inherited private properties) to purchase the securities in the CDP Account: at [4], [18] to [21].

(2) W further submitted, in respect of the CDP Account, that she had a meagre income which was mostly spent on household expenses. She thus could not have contributed the monthly sum required over the past 23 years to achieve the current value of the CDP Account. This was not the necessary conclusion. The CDP Account was not a savings account where the moneys were accumulated more or less linearly, and W's reasons for why her earnings were limited were vague and unexceptional: at [22] to [25].

(3) In respect of the Insurance Moneys, W claimed that she held the Insurance Moneys on trust for their eldest son. There was no basis to disturb the Judge's finding that the Insurance Moneys was a matrimonial asset as W's claim was not supported by the evidence: at [31].

Determination of the parties' direct contributions

(4) The determination of the parties' direct contributions was the first step in the structured approach in ANJ v ANK[2015] 4 SLR 1043 (“ANJ”). The structured approach was a broad-brush one, and was not to be applied in a rigid and overly mathematical manner. The broad-brush approach similarly applied in the determination of the parties' direct contributions. In this step, the court did not necessarily need to determine the parties' property rights or specific beneficial ownership in the assets in order to calculate the direct contributions of the parties. What was instead important was the financial contributions that went towards an asset falling within the definition of “matrimonial asset”. This was a strictly evidential exercise that was done on a broad-brush basis: at [33] to [37].

(5) The Toh Tuck Property was purchased in 2012. W's appeal against the Judge's determination of the parties' direct contributions to the Toh Tuck Property formed a substantial part of the appeal. W contested the Judge's determination on four sources of funds that went towards the property. The Judge determined that the parties contributed equally to a source of funds termed as the “Merrill Lynch Funds”, which comprised a sum of $2,031,353.68. The funds originated from shares inherited by W from her late father. The shares were transferred to the parties' joint Merrill Lynch account in about 2004. They were then liquidated and transferred to the parties' joint bank account before being applied towards the purchase of the Toh Tuck Property. The equal apportionment of the Merrill Lynch Funds by the Judge was on the basis that W's transfer of shares to the parties' joint Merrill Lynch account and of moneys to the parties' joint bank account were indicative of her intention to share the moneys with H. This, however, conflated the determination of the parties' specific beneficial interests in the Merrill Lynch Funds with the determination of who contributed the Merrill Lynch Funds. As the Merrill Lynch Funds clearly originated from W, she was to be credited for the contributions of the Merrill Lynch Funds whether or not she had the intention to share the Merrill Lynch Funds with H: at [39] to [44].

(6) The significance of a spouse's intention to share an asset with the other spouse would be relevant in determining whether the said asset should be included in the matrimonial pool. It, however, would not affect the analysis of the parties' direct contributions. To explain, the court disentangled the notion of sharing with reference to the decision in CLC v CLB[2023] SGCA 10 (“CLB”). In CLB, the Court of Appeal distinguished a situation involving a gift (ie, where the donee spouse, that being the spouse receiving a gift or inheritance, was giving the asset to the other spouse) from a situation involving sharing. The Court of Appeal in CLB opined that if an asset was a gift to the other spouse, it would be excluded from the matrimonial pool. If, however, the gifted asset had lost its original character of a gift (for instance, if the donee spouse shared a gifted asset with the family), it would be included in the matrimonial pool: at [45] and [46].

(7) In respect of the Merrill Lynch Funds, it was clear that it was not a situation involving inter-spousal gifts. The issue for determination was the parties' direct contributions to the Toh Tuck Property by virtue of the Merrill Lynch Funds, which was not disputed as being part of the pool of matrimonial assets. W intended to share and not gift the Merrill Lynch Funds. This intention was relevant in ascertaining whether the asset was part of the pool of matrimonial asset but did not feature in the specific analysis in the determination of parties' direct contributions: at [47] and [48].

(8) Therefore, whether or not W had the intention to share the Merrill Lynch Funds with H, the same outcome ensued: W was to be fully credited for the direct contributions of the Merrill Lynch Funds as the funds originated from her as her inheritance: at [49] and [50].

(9) The Judge also determined that the parties contributed equally to a source of funds known as the “Novena Lodge Proceeds”. This was a sum of $220,000 which originated from W's sale of a property at Novena Lodge that was in her sole name. W transferred the sale proceeds in three tranches from her personal bank account to the parties' joint bank account. The Judge held that W chose to transfer the funds to the parties' joint bank account, and thus intended to share the proceeds with H. As it was undisputed that W purchased the Novena Lodge property in her sole name, and that she alone contributed to the Novena Lodge Proceeds, the Novena Lodge Proceeds used for the acquisition of the Toh Tuck Property were to be fully attributed to her: at [51], [52] and [56].

(10) The Judge further apportioned equally what was termed the Pulasan Property Net Proceeds, which was a sum of $580,156.92 that arose from the sale of the parties' previous home (“Pulasan property”) that went towards the purchase of the Toh Tuck Property. There was no reason to disturb the Judge's equal apportionment of the Pulasan Property Net Proceeds. There was insufficient evidence to ascertain the parties' contributions to the Pulasan property. There was no documentary evidence concerning the parties' contributions. Applying a broad-brush approach, and keeping in view the gaps in the evidence as well as the significant time that had elapsed, an equal attribution of the sale proceeds of the Pulasan property as the parties' direct contributions was fair: at [61] to [63].

(11) The last source of funds was referred to as the “Renovation Cheques”, which comprised a sum of $229,466.00 paid from the parties' joint bank account between 5 July 2012 and 18 November 2012. The Judge attributed the sum equally between the parties as their direct contributions. After attributing portions of the Renovation Cheques to the Wife or the Husband based on the origin of the funds, the remaining sum was attributed equally as there was no evidence as to which party made the relevant contributions. The H thus contributed $118,857.70 while W contributed $110,608.29 to the Renovation Cheques: at [58], [59], [65] and [66].

Determination of the parties' indirect contributions

(12) There was no reason to disturb the Judge's determination of the parties' indirect contributions of 55:45 in W's favour. The Judge had adequately considered the relevant factors, and had determined correctly, on a broad-brush approach, that both parties made substantial contributions to the marriage and that the parties' indirect contributions should tend towards an equal apportionment, albeit slightly tilted in favour of W: at [72].

(13) W submitted that the Judge failed to appreciate the significant hardships she endured in bearing children, and that this was a basis for an uplift in her indirect...