WNA v WNB
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Kevin Ho |
Judgment Date | 09 June 2023 |
Neutral Citation | [2023] SGFC 14 |
Court | Family Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Divorce No. 4941 of 2021 |
Hearing Date | 29 March 2023,12 May 2023 |
Citation | [2023] SGFC 14 |
Year | 2023 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Mr Foo Ho Chew (M/s HC Law Practice) |
Defendant Counsel | Mr Poh Jun Zhe, Malcus (M/s Chung Ting Fai & Co.) |
Subject Matter | Family law,Ancillary matters,Division of matrimonial assets,Maintenance for wife,Maintenance for Child |
Published date | 17 June 2023 |
These grounds of decision relate to the ancillary matters (“AM”) proceedings in respect of FC/D 4941/2021.
I first heard the parties in March 2023 and delivered my decision, via Registrar’s Notice, in May 2023 (with brief reasons). The Defendant has since filed an appeal,
For ease of reference, I will refer to the Plaintiff as the “Husband”, and the Defendant as the “Wife”.
The present case involved an approximately 16-year marriage. The parties married on 2 August 2006 and interim judgment for divorce (“IJ”) was granted on 28 July 2022.1
The parties have 2 children to the marriage, [N] and [V], who are aged 17 years old and 12 years old, respectively (collectively, the “Children”).
Both parties had reached an agreement for them to share joint custody of the Children with the Wife having care and control. Access arrangements were also agreed between the parties with the specific terms of their agreement recorded in the IJ.
Thus, at the commencement of the AM hearing in March 2023, both counsel confirmed that the AM issues in dispute were as follows:
I now set out below my decision on the aforesaid issues, starting with the division of the parties’ matrimonial assets.
Matrimonial PoolAt the outset, it is important to emphasise that a determination of the appropriate ratio of division of the parties’ assets cannot be carried out without first determining what the parties’ pool of matrimonial assets (“Matrimonial Pool”) consists of.
This issue was particularly important in the present case as the Husband was an undischarged bankrupt and remained one at the time of the AM hearing.3
The impact of the Husband’s bankrupt status In her written submissions,4
The interplay between a divorcing spouse’s bankruptcy and the Family Court’s power to divide matrimonial assets pursuant to s 112 of the Women’s Charter 1961 (“WC”) was discussed by the High Court in
The effect of bankruptcy …
[…]
[Emphasis added in
italics ]
In summary, the High Court held that s 76(1)(
As s 112 of the WC gives the Family Court the power to divide matrimonial assets
In the context of the present case, that meant that only the Matrimonial Flat, the Husband’s CPF account monies and the monies in his bank account with United Overseas Bank fell within the Matrimonial Pool. The monies in this bank account fell within the Matrimonial Pool because the remainder of a bankrupt’s post-bankruptcy monthly income (after deducting the monthly contribution he has to pay to his creditors) would ordinarily
For the reasons set out at [32] below, I was not persuaded that there was an alleged sum of $25,000 which should be deemed to be in an account with DBS bank allegedly held by the Husband, and I therefore did not include this alleged asset. The transaction which the Wife relied on occurred in 2019 after the Husband’s bankruptcy8 which meant that any such money would have been part of the bankrupt’s estate and not the Matrimonial Pool.
For completeness, I had determined what assets fell within the Matrimonial Pool by reference to the operative date being the IJ date as neither party sought to argue for a different operative date to be applied.9
Valuation of the Matrimonial PoolI next address the total value of the Matrimonial Pool.
Based on the documents submitted by both parties, the main matrimonial asset was the Matrimonial Flat (which was and remains held in the Husband’s name). The challenge in the present case relates to determining the appropriate
The Husband’s counsel, in his written submissions, used the figure of $680,000.10 This figure was based on an assertion made in the Husband’s affidavit of assets and means where he claimed that the value of the Matrimonial Flat was $680,000, “
On the other hand, the Wife’s counsel used the figure of $770,000 as the value of the Matrimonial Flat.12 This figure was based on a value stated in the Wife’s AM Fact and Position Sheet (“DFPS”) filed on 28 March 2022,13 months after the parties’ initial AM affidavits had been filed.
It was also not entirely clear whether there remained any outstanding mortgage in respect of the property even though counsel for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
GHR v GHS
...of the High Court and the Family Court (for eg. UTL v UTM [2019] SGHCF 10 at [109]; UGM v UGN [2017] SGFC 123 at [53]; WNA v WNB [2023] SGFC 14 at [96]) have explained that lump-sum maintenance is usually not awarded for young children save for exceptional circumstances as the Child’s needs......