WFE v WFF

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Kannan Ramesh JAD
• Judgment Date: 28 April 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] SGHC(A) 16
• Court: High Court Appellate Division (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 61 of 2022
• Hearing Date: 30 January 2023
• Citation: [2023] SGHC(A) 16
• Year: 2023
• Plaintiff Counsel: Wong Soo Chih and Ho Shing Chian Juliana (SC Wong Law Chambers LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Kulvinder Kaur and Marina Mohamad Sani (I.R.B Law LLP)
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Matrimonial assets,Division,Application of structured approach under ANJ v ANK 2015 4 SLR 1043,Determination of direct contributions,Treatment of joint bank accounts,Direct contributions,Sharing and gifting
• Published date: 11 May 2023

Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD (delivering the judgment of the court):

This judgment analyses some issues that often arise in the application of the structured approach in ANJ v ANK [2015] 4 SLR 1043 (“ANJ”) when the court divides matrimonial assets pursuant to s 112 of the Women’s Charter 1961 (2020 Rev Ed) (the “Charter”).

We will refer to the appellant as the “Wife” and the respondent as the “Husband”. This is the Wife’s appeal against the decision of the Judge of the General Division of the High Court (the “Judge”) in WFE v WFF [2022] SGHCF 15 (the “Judgment”) in relation to the orders concerning the division of matrimonial assets.

The Wife and the Husband were married on 28 June 1997. The Wife is a doctor while the Husband was employed in the Singapore Armed Forces and retired in 2008. The parties have three sons. At the date of the hearing, they were 23, 19 and 16 years of age respectively. The Wife commenced divorce proceedings against the Husband on 4 December 2020. The interim judgment of divorce was granted on 15 July 2021.

On 4 October 2022, the Wife filed AD/SUM 35/2022 (“SUM 35”) as part of the present appeal to seek leave to adduce additional evidence. The evidence included a notice of transfer of a property in Holland Road showing that she had sold the property for $1.398m (the “Notice of Transfer”) and an “Edgeprop” webpage showing the historical transaction prices for an apartment in Peck Hay Road (the “Webpage”) (collectively, the “Documents”). Broadly, the Wife argued that the Documents relate to sale proceeds from two private properties that she inherited upon her late father’s death in 1999, and that these sale proceeds were traceable to holdings in her personal Central Depository Account ending 5068 (the “CDP Account”). SUM 35 was allowed on 25 November 2022, with costs of and incidental to the application to be costs in the cause in the present appeal.

Decision in the General Division of the High Court

We briefly summarise the portions of the Judge’s decision which have been appealed against. The Judge identified the value of the pool of matrimonial assets to be $9,832,718.29. He held that the Wife was entitled to 59.63% (ie, $5,863,249.92) while the Husband was entitled to 40.37% (ie, $3,969,468.37).

The Judge identified the CDP Account, which was valued at $3,007,166.98, to be a matrimonial asset. The Wife argued that the shares in the account were traceable to her inheritance and hence should be excluded from the pool of assets to be divided. The Husband contested this and submitted that the Wife had not given any evidence to demonstrate the link between the CDP Account and her inheritance. The Judge found that there was no evidence to show that the CDP Account was traceable to her inheritance, whether in terms of the shares being acquired by inheritance moneys or having been directly transferred from her late father’s estate. The Judge also included in the pool of matrimonial assets a sum of $89,858.54 held in the Wife’s personal bank account ending 7001 (the “Insurance Moneys”), which the Wife claimed she was holding on trust for her eldest son. Finally, the Judge included a Honda Fit vehicle (the “Vehicle”) in the pool of matrimonial assets. The Husband had used $40,000 from the parties’ joint bank account to pay for the Vehicle. The Wife asked for the $40,000 to be included in the pool. The Husband disagreed and explained that the Vehicle was purchased with the $40,000 withdrawn from the parties’ joint account, and that the Vehicle was used as a family car after the Wife left the matrimonial home with their previous family car. The Husband’s explanation was accepted by the Judge.

With regard to the parties’ direct contributions, the central contention pertained to the parties’ contributions to their matrimonial home at Toh Tuck Walk (the “Toh Tuck Property”), specifically, in respect of the following funds: first, $220,000.00 from the sale proceeds of the Novena Lodge property which was purchased in the Wife’s sole name (the “Novena Lodge Proceeds”); second, $2,031,353.68 from a Merrill Lynch account jointly held by the parties (the “Merrill Lynch Funds”); third, $580,156.92 from the sale proceeds of the parties’ previous home at Pulasan Road (the “Pulasan Property Net Proceeds”); and finally, $259,665.00 from the parties’ joint bank account for the renovation of the Toh Tuck Property. The Judge determined that the Wife contributed 52.2% (ie, $2,004,330.68) and the Husband contributed 47.8% (ie, $1,832,177.33) towards the Toh Tuck Property.

The Judge determined that the parties contributed equally to the Novena Lodge Proceeds. This was based on the Wife’s transfer of these proceeds to the parties’ joint account, which raised a rebuttable presumption that the Wife intended to share the sale proceeds with the Husband. The Judge also held that the parties contributed equally to the Merrill Lynch Funds, which were derived from the Wife’s inherited shares. The Wife had transferred these shares to the parties’ joint Merrill Lynch account, and on the liquidation of the shares, she transferred the funds to the parties’ joint bank account. The Judge held that this indicated her intention to share these funds with the Husband. As for the Pulasan Property Net Proceeds, the Judge found that the proceeds of sale of the Pulasan property (ie, $945,000) were to be attributed equally between the parties. As the Husband was a joint tenant of the Pulasan property, the Judge found that he owned half the beneficial interest in the property. There was also insufficient documentary evidence to support the Wife’s assertion that she had contributed to the bulk of the purchase price of the Pulasan property. After taking into account the refund of moneys to the parties’ CPF accounts and the costs of the interim residence pending the purchase of the Toh Tuck Property, the Husband was found to have contributed $154,518.08 while the Wife was found to have contributed $425,638.84. Finally, in respect of renovation costs, the evidence showed that the total cost of renovation was $271,748.00, of which $42,282.00 was paid from the Wife’s personal bank account. The remaining amount of $229,466.00 was paid from the parties’ joint bank account (the “Renovation Cheques”), and thus was attributed equally to the parties. A further aspect of the Judge’s determination concerns the Husband’s contribution of $88,249.41, which arose from the sale of shares in his account with UOB Kay Hian Pte Ltd (“UOB Kay Hian”). This was fully attributed to the Husband as his direct contributions to the Toh Tuck Property.

The parties’ indirect contributions were determined by the Judge to be 55:45 in favour of the Wife. Both parties made sacrifices to meet the needs of the family. Before the Husband retired, the Wife reduced her working hours to care for the children. After his retirement, the Husband took over as the primary caregiver. The Wife was then able to increase her working days to earn more income to meet household expenses. Their mutual support and joint parenting efforts suggested that their indirect contribution should tend towards an equal apportionment with a slightly higher ratio in favour of the Wife.

The Judge reached an average ratio of 59.63:40.37 in favour of the Wife. This was based on the parties’ direct contributions of 64.25:35.75 in favour of Wife, the full details of which are set out at [23] of the Judgment, and indirect contributions of 55:45 also in favour of the Wife.

The parties’ submissions

The Wife first argues that the Judge erred in finding that the CDP Account was a matrimonial asset. The holdings in the CDP Account were purchased using moneys she had inherited from her late father. She could not have funded the purchases based on her meagre income as a part-time locum doctor during the marriage, much of which went towards paying for household expenses. Second, she argues that the Insurance Moneys were held on trust for her eldest son and hence should be excluded from the pool of assets. The Insurance Moneys were disbursed to her upon maturity of a life insurance policy purchased for the eldest son. Third, she contests the Judge’s determination of the parties’ direct contributions to the Toh Tuck Property. She claims that she did not intend to share the Novena Lodge Proceeds or the Merrill Lynch Funds with the Husband. She also argues that there is no basis for the Judge to have relied on a “rebuttable presumption” that she intended to share those moneys by virtue of her transfer of the moneys to their joint account. With regard to the Pulasan Property Net Proceeds, she submits that there is sufficient evidence that she had contributed to the bulk of the purchase price of the Pulasan property, and hence the sale proceeds should not be attributed equally as their direct contributions. As for the Renovation Cheques, she argues that the funds originated from her contributions to the parties’ joint account and should be fully attributed to her. Fourth, she submits that the $40,000 that went into the acquisition of the Vehicle should be apportioned equally given that it originated from the parties’ joint account. Finally, she submits that the Judge’s determination of the parties’ indirect contributions is erroneous. There is insufficient evidence of the Husband’s indirect financial contributions. As for her indirect non-financial contributions, she has, among other things, endured hardships in carrying three pregnancies to term and had sacrificed career progression for the family. The Wife submits that the matrimonial assets should be divided 66.2:33.8 in her favour.

The Husband disagrees with the Wife’s submissions. First, he submits that there is insufficient evidence to show that the shares in the CDP Account were purchased using the Wife’s inheritance. The Husband also disputes the Wife’s claim that she had meagre earnings from her part-time job as a...