fc_judgments: 13
Data source: lawnet.sg/lawnet/web/lawnet/free-resources
This data as json
| _id | _item_id | tags | date | court | case-number | title | citation | url | counsel | timestamp | coram | html | _commit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13 | 21655b0c20ddfadd31d34b8007661dfb471680da | [
"Family Law \u2013 Custody \u2013 care and control",
"Family Law \u2013 Matrimonial assets \u2013 Division",
"Family Law \u2013 Maintenance \u2013 Child",
"Family Law \u2013 Maintenance \u2013 Wife",
"Family Law \u2013 Maintenance \u2013 Husband"
] |
2024-01-26 | Family Court | D 399 of 2022 | WAH v WAG | [2024] SGFC 6 | https://www.lawnet.sg:443/lawnet/web/lawnet/free-resources?p_p_id=freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet&p_p_lifecycle=1&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&_freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet_action=openContentPage&_freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet_docId=%2FJudgment%2F30974-SSP.xml | [
"Plaintiff in person",
"Ms Hing Wei Yuen Angelina and Mr Denny Lin DianYan (Integro Law Chambers LLC) for the defendant"
] |
2024-01-31T16:00:00Z[GMT] | Chia Wee Kiat | <root><head><title>WAH v WAG</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> WAH <em>v</em> WAG </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/30974-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 6</a></span></h2><table id="info-table"><tbody><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Case Number</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">D 399 of 2022</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Decision Date</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">26 January 2024</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Tribunal/Court</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">Family Court</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Coram</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> Chia Wee Kiat </td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Counsel Name(s)</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> Plaintiff in person; Ms Hing Wei Yuen Angelina and Mr Denny Lin DianYan (Integro Law Chambers LLC) for the defendant </td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Parties</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> WAH — WAG </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Custody</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">care and control</span></p> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Matrimonial assets</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Division</span></p> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Maintenance</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Child</span></p> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Maintenance</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Wife</span></p> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Maintenance</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Husband</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">26 January 2024</p></td><td><p class="Judg-Date-Reserved"></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p> <p class="Judg-Author"> District Judge Chia Wee Kiat:</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Background</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1 The plaintiff (the “Husband”) and the defendant (the “Wife”) were married on 4 February 2018. The Husband is a practicing lawyer<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span>, and the Wife is an auditor.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span> The parties have a young child, [E], who is 5 years of age this year.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 The Husband commenced divorce proceedings on 27 January 2022. The Wife filed her Defence and Counterclaim on 17 February 2022. On 30 June 2022, Interim Judgment of Divorce (“IJ”) was granted based on both parties’ unreasonable behaviour.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_3" id="Ftn_3_1"><sup>[note: 3]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 At the ancillary matters (the “AM”) hearing on 4 July 2023, I gave directions for parties to file a Joint Summary and called for a Custody Evaluation Report (“CER”).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 On 1 December 2023, I rendered my decision with brief written grounds. As the Wife has appealed against part of my decision, I now provide my full grounds of decision incorporating my brief grounds.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Custody, care and control</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 Prior to the commencement of the divorce proceedings, the parties had each taken out cross-applications under s 5 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1934 (“the OSG applications”) against the other. The procedural history of the parties’ litigation is set out in my decision in <em>WAG v WAH</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/27153-SSP.xml')">[2022] SGFC 17</a> (“<em>WAG v WAH</em>”).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 The OSG applications culminated in my order dated 24 November 2021 (the “OSG order”) which provides, <em>inter alia</em>, that parties shall have joint custody of the child and that with effect from 27 June 2022, the Husband shall have unsupervised overnight access on the weekend from Friday 6pm to Sunday 11am. The parties’ cross-appeals against my decision were dismissed by Choo Han Teck J on 28 April 2022: see <em>WAH v WAG</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/27460-SSP.xml')">[2022] SGHCF 9</a> (“<em>WAH v WAG</em>”).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 Subsequent to the OSG order, I made further orders on 10 March 2023 (the “10 March order”) pursuant to the parties’ cross-applications <em>vide</em> FC/SUM 3869/2022 and FC/SUM 151/2023 filed in the divorce proceedings. The 10 March order was concerned mainly with pre-school matters and does not affect the access arrangement stipulated in the OSG order.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 The Husband also filed FC/SUM 1112/2023 (“SUM 1112”). This is an application, which, according to the Husband, “relates to parents keeping each other updated reasonably quickly when E is unwell”.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_4" id="Ftn_4_1"><sup>[note: 4]</sup></a></span> As the AM orders are final orders (see <em>WAH v WAG</em> (at [9] & [16])), SUM 1112 was considered holistically under the AM hearing.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">The Husband’s position</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 In broad terms, the Husband is seeking joint custody, care and control of E.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_5" id="Ftn_5_1"><sup>[note: 5]</sup></a></span> The Husband wants E to be within the care and control of one parent from Saturday 9pm to Wednesday morning while the other parent will have the remaining time with E.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_6" id="Ftn_6_1"><sup>[note: 6]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 The Husband says that the OSG order has been intact since 24 November 2021. Approximately 18 months thereon, he has not missed one access session. This amounts to approximately 72 weekends. There were 5 weekends where access was denied because the Wife deemed E ill.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_7" id="Ftn_7_1"><sup>[note: 7]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 The Husband says that even though the Wife has been tacitly alienating E from him,<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_8" id="Ftn_8_1"><sup>[note: 8]</sup></a></span> he has bonded well with E.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_9" id="Ftn_9_1"><sup>[note: 9]</sup></a></span> The Husband says that E has expressed that he wants to spend more time with him. E has informed the Husband that he wants the Husband to pick him up and drop him off at school like other fathers who drop and pick up his friends. The Husband says that he too wants to be a part of E’s school life as it is and will continue to be a significant influence in E’s life.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_10" id="Ftn_10_1"><sup>[note: 10]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 The Husband acknowledges that both parents share a strong love for E. The Husband says that he is a sole proprietor and can manage his time accordingly while the Wife appears to still be able to work from home. The Husband says that both have a support system that supplements their immediate care giving abilities.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_11" id="Ftn_11_1"><sup>[note: 11]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 The Husband says that the two nights of access spanning the weekends has not disrupted E’s development and there are no adverse reports by the Wife from the school that E is unable to cope. On the contrary, E is growing steadily at school and has become focused since the beginning of 2023.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_12" id="Ftn_12_1"><sup>[note: 12]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 The Husband says that the court can put in place several orders to facilitate cooperative co-parenting<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_13" id="Ftn_13_1"><sup>[note: 13]</sup></a></span> and should not allow the Wife to use acrimony for the self-serving position to prolong sole care and control and minimize progressive co-parenting.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_14" id="Ftn_14_1"><sup>[note: 14]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 The Husband says that he does not seek to reverse care and control as such a request may be too drastic for the Wife to bear, given her emotional attachment to E. However, to not make changes to the care and control facet of the interim orders would effectively reward the Wife and embolden her behaviour towards co-parenting, thereby depriving the child of what is in his best interests.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_15" id="Ftn_15_1"><sup>[note: 15]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 The Husband’s detailed proposals for access are set out at paragraph 4 of his Written Submissions.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_16" id="Ftn_16_1"><sup>[note: 16]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">The Wife’s position</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 The Wife says that after the OSG order, she has been doing her utmost to abide by the orders. As such, the framework set out in the OSG order has been working relatively well under the circumstances in supporting the child’s safety, well-being and development. The OSG order has provided a firm and secure scaffold for the child’s growth under her care and control as the primary caregiver of the child.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_17" id="Ftn_17_1"><sup>[note: 17]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 The Wife is not in favour of shared care and control. She explains that the marriage has been extremely acrimonious, with legal proceedings lasting much longer than the length of the marriage itself. During the marriage, she was always the first one to want to resolve the issue, try to talk things out calmly and be prepared to forgive and forget. Even after the marriage had broken down, the Wife continued being the one trying various ways to urge the Husband to minimise acrimony. The Wife says that the Husband would case-build to show a “Sterling outlook” in court litigation while giving her “hell” by continually making harassing calls and emails during his access time so that he can turn round and accuse her of not responding to him or not co-parenting with him.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_18" id="Ftn_18_1"><sup>[note: 18]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19 The Wife says that the Husband would openly quote excerpts of Court Order and Grounds of Decision where it suits him to intimidate, bully and humiliate her.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_19" id="Ftn_19_1"><sup>[note: 19]</sup></a></span> The Wife says that the Husband has been filing numerous applications to prolong litigation and increase legal fees for the Wife, and has refused to resolve matters amicably.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_20" id="Ftn_20_1"><sup>[note: 20]</sup></a></span> For example, the Husband has sought to impose extremely prescriptive orders in SUM 1112<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_21" id="Ftn_21_1"><sup>[note: 21]</sup></a></span> and refused to return the child after access so as to put the Wife under duress to get the Wife to agree to his demands.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_22" id="Ftn_22_1"><sup>[note: 22]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20 The Wife says that she, on the other hand, has been doing her utmost to put the past behind her and parent the child as best as she can. She has been doing her utmost to comply with the Court’s orders, despite it being extremely challenging.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_23" id="Ftn_23_1"><sup>[note: 23]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21 The Wife says that the child was often returned back (and often late) from his access from the Husband sick, resulting in the Wife having to bear the aftermath caregiving, which adversely affects the rest of the weekdays under the Wife’s care.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_24" id="Ftn_24_1"><sup>[note: 24]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22 The Wife says that the Husband is busy with work, and does not have support from his family members. The child is young and susceptible to falling sick. The refusal of the Husband to acknowledge this, and his constant clamoring for more time with the child as a matter of right, is not in the interests of the child, or the co-parenting relationship with the Wife.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_25" id="Ftn_25_1"><sup>[note: 25]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23 The Wife says that while she has been trying her best efforts to continually affirm joint custody, this is not the case for the Husband. The Husband’s conduct has deeply eroded any trust she has left, and instead of repairing it, the Husband continues to ravage through whatever little of it is left.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_26" id="Ftn_26_1"><sup>[note: 26]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24 The Wife submits that given parties’ relationship is highly acrimonious, it is clearly not in the child’s best interests that shared care and control is ordered in this case. This is especially so given the Husband’s inability to put the child’s interests in the forefront.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_27" id="Ftn_27_1"><sup>[note: 27]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25 Although the Wife proposes that the fundamentals of the OSG order be preserved<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_28" id="Ftn_28_1"><sup>[note: 28]</sup></a></span>, she feels that the present OSG order effectively limits the time she has with the child during weekends to be on Sunday after 11am. This would effectively only leave time for the child to have lunch, a nap in the afternoon and dinner before turning in for bed at 8pm.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_29" id="Ftn_29_1"><sup>[note: 29]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_26"></a>26 The Wife says that while the present arrangement might have been applicable when the child was not in school, the arrangement is no longer ideal for the child, now that the child has started pre-school as it gives her very little quality time with the child. The current OSG order as it stands basically only gives the Wife a few hours in the day on Sunday. The Wife says that this is clearly insufficient for the Wife and her extended family to spend quality time with the child over the weekends which will impact the bonding and development of the child over an extended period of time.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_30" id="Ftn_30_1"><sup>[note: 30]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_27"></a>27 The Wife says that there is no opportunity for the Wife to bring the child for any activities, which may include movies, family get-togethers, with the child’s extended family. The Wife is also unable to schedule any trips to Sentosa, the Zoo, etc. with the child during her time with him. These activities often would be whole-day activities and the child would be extremely tired at the end of the day. The Wife says that most parents would have such activities on a Saturday so that the child can rest and recover and be ready for school on Sunday. The Wife would like to be able to do this once a fortnight.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_31" id="Ftn_31_1"><sup>[note: 31]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_28"></a>28 The Wife hopes that the Court would grant the Wife an apportionment of the prime weekend time which includes one non-school night to spend with the child so that the Wife is also given the fundamental opportunity to bond with the child as well as to allow the child to visit with the maternal extended family during the weekends. The Wife is a working mother and weekend time with the child is precious to her.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_32" id="Ftn_32_1"><sup>[note: 32]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_29"></a>29 A summary of the Wife’s proposals for access is set out at paragraph 82 of her Written Submissions.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_33" id="Ftn_33_1"><sup>[note: 33]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Welfare of child </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_30"></a>30 It is trite law that in deciding on custody, care and control issues, the court must regard the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration: see s 125(2) of the Women’s Charter 1961 (“the Charter”).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_31"></a>31 The principles of law on custody are well settled. Generally, joint or no custody orders should be made, with sole custody orders being an exception to the rule. As explained by the Court of Appeal <em>in CX v CY (minor: custody and access)</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/[2005] 3 SLR(R) 0690.xml')">[2005] 3 SLR(R) 690</a> (at [28]):</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">… the making of joint or no custody orders reminds the parents that the law expects both of them to co-operate to promote the child’s best interest. With the grant of joint or no custody orders, the likelihood of the non-custodial parents being excluded from the child’s life is much reduced. It also encourages the parent who does not reside with the child to continue to play his or her role in joint parenthood.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_32"></a>32 In the present case, I am heartened to note that the parties have agreed to joint custody. This is a positive shift from the litigious position taken in the earlier OSG proceedings where the Wife had sought strenuously for a sole custody order: see <em>WAG v WAH</em> (at [127]). I commend the Wife for taking this positive step towards co-parenting.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_33"></a>33 I am also heartened to note that the parties have responded well to the framework set out in the OSG order.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_34" id="Ftn_34_1"><sup>[note: 34]</sup></a></span> I find it especially encouraging to see that the Wife is no longer objecting to overnight access, but seeks only to have an apportionment of the prime weekend time, which is not an unreasonable request by itself. This is a positive development from the intractable position she took in the earlier proceedings: see <em>WAG v WAH</em> (at [156]).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_34"></a>34 The central issue before me at this ancillary hearing is whether it would be in the best interests of the child for the care arrangement to progress to one of shared care and control.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_35"></a>35 As noted in <em>AQL v AQM</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/[2012] 1 SLR 0840.xml')">[2012] 1 SLR 840</a> (at [9]):</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">The practical effect of an order of shared care and control means that the child will spend roughly equal amounts of time (including overnight) with each parent. An order of shared care and control can take different forms depending on the circumstances. This is illustrated by two High Court decisions where shared care and control was ordered: in <em>AHJ v AHK</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/[2010] SGHC 0148.xml')">[2010] SGHC 148</a> the child would spend Saturdays 8.00pm to Wednesday 11.30am with the mother, and the rest of the week with the father; in <em>AKF v AKG</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/[2010] SGHC 0225.xml')">[2010] SGHC 225</a> the same learned judge held that the children would spend alternate fortnights with each parent.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_36"></a>36 The Husband has had unsupervised overnight parenting time (from Friday 6pm to Sunday 11am) with the child since June 2022. The Husband would like to seek more parenting time with the child. He has proposed a balanced sharing of parenting time through a half-week arrangement. However, the Wife objects to shared care and control. She has instead proposed for the Husband’s weekend parenting time with the child to be reduced so that she could bond with the child on weekends too.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_37"></a>37 The primary reason relied upon by the Wife to resist shared care and control is the acrimonious relationship of the parties.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_35" id="Ftn_35_1"><sup>[note: 35]</sup></a></span> She submits as follows:<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_36" id="Ftn_36_1"><sup>[note: 36]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">70 In the case of <em>TAU v TAT <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/22070-SSP.xml')">[2018] SGHCF 11</a></em>, the Honourable Justice Debbie Ong held at [12], that to ignore the realities such as parental conflict, parties’ emotional baggage by imposing shared care and control can do more harm than good. Justice Ong further held at [29] that shared care and control of the child would not be workable because of the acrimonious relationship between the parties as well as their very different parenting styles.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">71 In the case of <em>AQL v AQM <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/[2011] SGHC 0264.xml')">[2011] SGHC 264</a></em>, the High Court held at [14]-[21] that an order for shared care and control was not in the interests of the child as it would be too disruptive to constancy of routine that the child required and the animosity between the parents and their resulting inability to compromise would also exacerbate the sense of disruption.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_38"></a>38 However, I note that in the recent decision of <em>CXR v CXQ</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/29421-SSP.xml')">[2023] SGHCF 10</a> (“<em>CXR v CXQ</em>”), the court made an order of shared care and control notwithstanding the acrimonious relationship of the parties and their inability to co-parent effectively. Debbie Ong JAD explained (at [18]) as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <b>I was acutely cognisant of the parties’ acrimonious relationship and their present inability to co-parent effectively.</b> I was equally aware that both parents love C dearly and had been giving their best efforts to care for him and help him cope with his medical condition and learning disabilities, albeit in their own ways. As C was living with both parents in the matrimonial home, he was accustomed to the arrangements and was close to, and dependent on both parents. While there were difficulties in cooperating on matters relating to C in the past few years, the parties were also able to sort out many care aspects including having C travel with his father. C has had the physical presence and care of both parents in his life even after the marriage had broken down. In the circumstances, I was of the view that parties should share care and control of C, but it is crucial that they must have in place a clear routine and structure that would enable C to have a stable and predictable arrangement. This arrangement placed the best interests of C at the forefront.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[emphasis in bold added]</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_39"></a>39 Quite clearly, the parties’ acrimonious relationship or inability to co-parent effectively are not reasons by themselves to refuse shared care and control. Ultimately, the question to be considered in each case is whether shared care and control would be in the child’s best interests and this must be assessed based on the specific facts of the case. Indeed, this is also clear from a careful reading of <em>TAU v TAT</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/22070-SSP.xml')">[2018] SGHCF 11</a>, a case precedent cited by the Wife, where Debbie Ong J (as she then was) said (at [12]) as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">As I have explained above, the legal constructs of custody, care and control, and access are used to support families where the child’s parents have separated. Intact, functioning families do not need such interventions. The ideal state is understandably for a child to be in an intact family where he or she lives with and is lovingly cared for jointly by both parents. Yet, upon the breakdown of a marriage, this is simply no longer fully achievable. The family justice system nevertheless aspires to achieve the ideal state of affairs for the child, or the closest to it possible. But to ignore the realities, including the parental conflict, the parties’ emotional baggage and the new dynamics of the various relationships, and impose in all situations a modified version of the perceived ideal (such as equal-time shared parenting or shared care and control) can do more harm than good. <b>Thus in considering whether shared care and control would be in the child’s welfare, the court will have to consider factors such as that particular child’s needs at that stage of life, the extent to which the parents are able to co-operate within such an arrangement, and whether it is easy for that child, bearing in mind his or her age and personality, to live in two homes within one week</b>.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[emphasis in bold added]</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_40"></a>40 The Wife also contends that the child should primarily stay with her due to his established weekday routine, proximity to preschool (five minutes’ walk), and the need to maintain consistency to prepare the child for kindergarten in 2024.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_37" id="Ftn_37_1"><sup>[note: 37]</sup></a></span> The Wife says that night sleep is very important for a growing and developing child. In her view, it is clearly not in the child’s interests to have a shorter sleep time on Thursday night or have a longer commute on Friday mornings just to get to school on time.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_38" id="Ftn_38_1"><sup>[note: 38]</sup></a></span> If the child does not receive adequate rest on Thursday night, he would be tired and lethargic in his pre-school and this would affect his focus and concentration in school on Friday. Additionally, if the child does not get adequate rest on Thursday night, he may not be able to be punctual for his morning classes/activities on Friday and then this would mean that his development in school would be affected.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_39" id="Ftn_39_1"><sup>[note: 39]</sup></a></span> In the interests of the child, the Wife hopes to avoid constant upheaval in access arrangements.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_40" id="Ftn_40_1"><sup>[note: 40]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_41"></a>41 The Wife also says that the current orders as they stand do not allow her and her extended family to spend any quality time with the child over the weekends and this will impact the bonding and development of the child as they will not be able to carry out any activities together over the weekends.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_41" id="Ftn_41_1"><sup>[note: 41]</sup></a></span> The current orders also accord both non-school nights (Friday and Saturday) to the Husband. There is therefore no opportunity for the Wife to equally share in any of the non-school nights. The Wife says that all the nights that she currently has with the child would be school nights where the child would have a full day and be required to rest early in preparation for school the next day.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_42" id="Ftn_42_1"><sup>[note: 42]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_42"></a>42 The Wife therefore proposes an equal sharing of the weekends for the child to bond with her and the maternal family.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_43" id="Ftn_43_1"><sup>[note: 43]</sup></a></span> Notably, the Wife did not propose any make up access for the Husband. The effect of the Wife’s proposal is therefore to roll back on the access that has been in place since June 2022 pursuant to the OSG order.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_43"></a>43 In my view, the Wife’s contentions overlook the child’s socioemotional development. They do not consider the child’s relationship with the Husband, the importance of shared parenting, and the potential benefits of spending time with both parents for the child’s overall development and well-being. A child-centric arrangement should prioritize the child’s well-being and the opportunity to maintain meaningful relationship with both parents, rather than solely focusing on convenience, routines and the wish of one parent to have more time with the child.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_44"></a>44 At the OSG proceedings, I reminded parties that the child is young and will benefit from regular interaction and close physical contact with both parents. I referred parties to <em>BNT v BNS</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/[2014] SGHC 0187.xml')">[2014] SGHC 187</a> where Judith Prakash J noted (at [35(b)]) as follows:<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_44" id="Ftn_44_1"><sup>[note: 44]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">With younger children, closeness is promoted by physical contact and frequent interaction in routine activities. Telephone and internet access are frequently unsatisfactory due to technical difficulties and generally permit only one type of interaction: conversation. Normal family life consists of much more than conversations between parent and child – there are joint activities, routines, projects, discipline and learning from the examples set by the parents in all sorts of situations.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_45"></a>45 I also referred to <em>VDZ v VEA</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/25178-SSP.xml')">[2020] 2 SLR 858</a> where the Court of Appeal noted (at [79]) as follows:<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_45" id="Ftn_45_1"><sup>[note: 45]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Every child requires love and care from <em>both</em> parents in order to grow up and achieve their fullest potential as balanced individuals</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[emphasis in original]</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_46"></a>46 At the OSG proceedings, I found that the bond between the Husband and the child needed to be restored and strengthened as the Husband’s physical contact with the child had been adversely affected by the Wife’s action to restrict access. I explained as follows:<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_46" id="Ftn_46_1"><sup>[note: 46]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">The objective evidence shows that the Father has a close relationship with the child. He has been an intimate part of the child’s life since the child was born. The child is familiar with the Father, the paternal family and the environment in Home A. It is not disputed that the Mother left Home A with the child and restricted access to the Father. Whatever her justification may be, the effect of her action is that the physical contact between the Father and the child has been affected. It is the interests of the child that the bond between the Father and the child be restored and strengthened.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_47"></a>47 Although the Husband had sought shared care and control at the OSG proceedings, I decided then that it would be preferrable for the child to continue staying with the Wife to maintain stability in his routine and living arrangements, but at the same time increase the access for the Husband to spend more quality bonding with the child. I indicated that after the child adjusts to the changes, it would be beneficial for the child to have longer duration of access with the Husband.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_47" id="Ftn_47_1"><sup>[note: 47]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_48"></a>48 At the time of my decision in the OSG proceedings, the Husband had been exercising access to the child three times a week since my interim order dated 14 January 2021 made earlier in the same proceedings. I found that it would be in the interests of the child to commence overnight access with effect from the week beginning 3 January 2022 on the weekend from Friday 6pm to Saturday 6pm. This would provide opportunities for the child to bond with the Husband and paternal family members over a longer period of time. It would also reduce the frequency of handovers and the risk of conflict escalation in the presence of the child.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_48" id="Ftn_48_1"><sup>[note: 48]</sup></a></span> In addition, I provided a step-up access plan for one more overnight on Saturdays starting from the week commencing 27 June 2022.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_49" id="Ftn_49_1"><sup>[note: 49]</sup></a></span> The child has adjusted well to the changes.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_49"></a>49 Having regard to all the circumstances including the CER, I found that it would be beneficial for the child to transit to a shared parenting arrangement where he resides with each parent on an alternating week schedule from Friday 4pm to the following Friday 4 pm. Increasing the child’s time with the Husband would help strengthen his bond with the Husband and allow him to experience consistent and positive interactions. At the same time, the alternating week arrangement would give the Wife an equal opportunity to bond with the child over the weekend and should go some way towards assuaging her other concerns. To avoid issues of any parent returning the child late, each parent will pick the child from school on Friday 4 pm (or when formal lessons end) at the start of their alternate-week.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_50"></a>50 In my brief grounds, I reminded parties once again that parental responsibility includes supporting the child’s relationships with both parents: see <em>WAH v WAG</em> (at [87]). As noted in <em>VPG v VPF</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/26209-SSP.xml')">[2021] SGHCF 18</a> (at [10]):</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Parental responsibility is a legal duty to be discharged by both parents. A strong parent is one who can support the child in having a close relationship with the other parent.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_51"></a>51 A party who makes a unliteral decision to deny the other parent their parenting time with the child would be acting in breach not only of the court orders, but also of their parental responsibility. I would encourage both parents to carry out the orders made with a supportive and cooperative spirit. In the unfortunate event that a parent is denied parenting time as a result of the unilateral decision of the other party, the affected parent shall be entitled to make-up parenting time. Parties should always endeavour to resolve any such dispute amicably before resorting to litigation.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_52"></a>52 I made the following orders:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a> <u>Custody, Care and Control</u> </p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_52-p2_1"></a>1. The parties shall have joint custody of the child.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_52-p2_2"></a>2. The parties shall have shared care and control of the child.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_52-p2_3"></a>3. With effect from January 2024, the child shall transit from the current access arrangement to a shared parenting arrangement where he resides with each parent on alternating weeks schedule from Friday 4 pm to the following Friday 4pm.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_52-p2_4"></a>4. For the avoidance of doubt, the Husband shall have the child in the first alternate-week beginning with 5 January 2024 and the Wife shall have the child in the second alternate-week beginning with 12 January 2024.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_52-p2_5"></a>5. Save for the arrangement on exchange set out in para 6 below, each parent shall be responsible for sending the child to school and fetching the child home in the alternate-week that the parent has care of the child.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_52-p2_6"></a>6. The parent having care of the child shall pick the child from school on Friday 4 pm (or when formal lessons end) at the start of the alternate-week when the child is to reside with that parent.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_52-p2_7"></a>7. The parties can mutually agree to adjust these care periods.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a> <u>Daily call/video time</u> </p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_52-p2_8"></a>8. The party not having parenting time with the child will have 10-minute daily call/video time with the child.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a> <u>School and Public Holidays</u> </p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_52-p2_9"></a>9. The alternate-week parenting time will take precedence over school holidays (or school closure days) and Public Holidays except Deepavali.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_52-p2_10"></a>10. Where Deepavali does not fall within the other parent’s parenting time, the other parent will have 4.5 hours with the child from 9am to 1.30pm.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a> <u>Birthdays</u> </p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_52-p2_11"></a>11. Child’s birthday: When the child’s birthday does not fall within the other parent’s parenting time, the other parent will have 2.5 hours with the child from 5.30pm to 8pm.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_52-p2_12"></a>12. Parents’ birthdays: Where a parent’s birthday does not fall within his/her parenting time, this parent will have 2.5 hours with the child from 5.30pm to 8.00pm.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a> <u>Bereavement</u> </p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_52-p2_13"></a>13. Upon the demise of an immediate family member, the grieving parent shall be granted time with the child for three consecutive days irrespective of parenting time arrangements.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a> <u>Exchange</u> </p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_52-p2_14"></a>14. In terms of exchange, each parent shall pick the child from school at the start of their alternate-week.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_52-p2_15"></a>15. Relevant orders relating to the school should be made available to the school management.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_52-p2_16"></a>16. Where a Friday falls on a non-school day, the Husband shall collect the child at time 4pm or return the child at 4 pm (as the case may be) at the Wife’s condominium guardhouse.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_52-p2_17"></a>17. Extended family members shall not be present at handovers.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_52-p2_18"></a>18. The parties shall not, either by themselves or through other persons or means, photograph or record videos of the handovers.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a> <u>Make-up parenting time</u> </p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_52-p2_19"></a>19. Where a parent is denied parenting time with the child as a result of the unilateral decision of the other party, the parent shall be entitled to make-up parenting time.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_52-p2_20"></a>20. Parties should endeavour to resolve any such dispute amicably before making an application to the Court for make-up parenting time.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a> <u>Overseas Travel</u> </p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_52-p2_21"></a>21. The parties shall not take the child out of jurisdiction without the prior written consent of the other party or without an Order of Court.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_52-p2_22"></a>22. Parties are to provide at least four weeks’ advance notice of the travel plans/itinerary in writing.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_52-p2_23"></a>23. The travelling party is to also notify any changes promptly in the travel plans to the other party.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a> <u>Mutual Agreement</u> </p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_52-p2_24"></a>24. Parties may vary the care arrangement by mutual agreement.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a> <u>Support Services</u> </p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_52-p2_25"></a>25. Each party will attend individual therapy with a psychologist or counsellor experienced in parent-child issues of his or her own choice and at their own expense to help them:</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_52-p2_25-p3_a"></a>a. improve communication between the parties as co-parents;</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_52-p2_25-p3_b"></a>b. acquire healthy conflict resolution skills regarding parenting time and parenting matters;</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_52-p2_25-p3_c"></a>c. manage personal stress;</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_52-p2_25-p3_d"></a>d. consider the child’s best interests when making parenting decisions;</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_52-p2_25-p3_e"></a>e. avoid behaviour that disparages the other parent;</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_52-p2_25-p3_f"></a>f. support and facilitate the child’s relationship with the other parent; and</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_52-p2_25-p3_g"></a>g. rebuild trust, confidence and motivation as co-parents.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_52-p2_26"></a>26. The child shall attend counselling and such support programme as may be deemed appropriate by the FAMS@FSC counsellor to support the child with the transition to alternate-week care arrangement and his emotional development.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_52-p2_27"></a>27. The parties shall cooperate and work with the FAMS@FSC counsellor.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_52-p2_28"></a>28. The parties shall bear the costs of such counselling and support programmes for the child, if any, equally between them.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_53"></a>53 Given that parties have been able to co-operate for over two years since the OSG order was made, I was hopeful that good sense would prevail, and they would have the fortitude to bring out the best version of themselves to make the shared parenting arrangement work. I was particularly heartened, in this regard, to see a more conciliatory and enlightened approach taken by the Wife in these proceedings, compared to the hard and unreasonable stance she took in the OSG proceedings.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_54"></a>54 It is therefore disappointing that after my decision was rendered, the Wife filed Notice of Appeal against the shared care arrangement and consequential orders, and applied for stay of execution. This was despite my earlier advice to parties in the OSG proceedings (see <em>WAG v WAH</em> (at [7]) as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">It is my hope that the parents would carry out the orders made with a supportive and cooperative spirit. However, both parties have filed appeals to press on with the litigation. That is of course their prerogatives as litigants, but it would also mean that the conflicts between the parents will continue to fester, and this cannot be good for the well-being of the child.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_55"></a>55 It is worthwhile to reiterate that parental responsibility is not just a personal responsibility which involves the parents’ time and personal sacrifices, but also a legal responsibility. As Debbie Ong JAD noted in the recent decision in <em>DDN v DDO</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/30869-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGHC(A) 2</a> (at [17]):</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">… the court expects parties to do their utmost to make the ordered arrangements work. This perspective is crucial to ensuring that “the child’s interests are not side-lined while his or her parents litigate over what they subjectively perceive to be their respective rights and entitlements”: <em>TAU v TAT</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/22624-SSP.xml')">[2018] 5 SLR 1089</a> (“<em>TAU</em>”) (at [10]).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_56"></a>56 For reasons set out in separate grounds issued to parties on 24 January 2024, I dismissed the stay application.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Division of assets</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_57"></a>57 Section 112(10) of the Charter provides the definition of “matrimonial asset”. Matrimonial assets (“MAs”) include assets which were “acquired during the marriage by one party or both parties to the marriage”: s 112(10)(b) of the Charter. Assets which were acquired before the marriage are not MAs, unless transformed in accordance with the tests in s 112(10)(a)(i) or (ii) of the Charter.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_58"></a>58 As a general position, the operative date for the identification of MAs is the date of the IJ, and all MAs should be valued at the date of the AM hearing. Balances in the parties’ bank and Central Provident Fund (“CPF”) accounts are to be taken at the date of the IJ, as the MAs are the moneys and not the bank and CPF accounts themselves: see <em>UYP v UYQ</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/23358-SSP.xml')">[2019] SGHCF 16</a> (at [4]).</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">The pool of matrimonial assets </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_59"></a>59 The starting point in the division exercise is the identification of the total pool of MAs: see <em>CVC v CVB</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/30092-SSP.xml')">[2023] SGHC(A) 28</a> (at [44]).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_60"></a>60 The parties have filed a Joint Summary dated 25 July 2023 setting out a joint list of assets and the parties’ positions. For ease of discussion, I shall proceed in the order adopted in the Joint Summary.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">S/N 1 – Riveredge Property 1<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_50" id="Ftn_50_1"><sup>[note: 50]</sup></a></span> (“RP1”)</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_61"></a>61 The Husband says that RP1 is a transformed matrimonial asset under <em>USB v USA</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/24645-SSP.xml')">[2020] SGCA 57</a> (“<em>USB v USA</em>”) and became part of the matrimonial pool because it was used ordinarily for the purposes of shelter for the family from around November 2019.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_51" id="Ftn_51_1"><sup>[note: 51]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_62"></a>62 The Wife says that RP1 is not part of the pool to be divided. This is a pre-marital asset bought in 2009 and also an inheritance asset inherited in 2016.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_52" id="Ftn_52_1"><sup>[note: 52]</sup></a></span> The property is held in joint tenancy with her mother and brother.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_53" id="Ftn_53_1"><sup>[note: 53]</sup></a></span> The Wife says that the Husband has never lived in it nor pay for any improvement.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_54" id="Ftn_54_1"><sup>[note: 54]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_63"></a>63 As noted earlier, assets which were acquired before the marriage are not MAs, unless transformed in accordance with the tests in s 112(10)(a)(i) or (ii) of the Charter. The Husband does not dispute that RP1 is an asset acquired before marriage but says that it should be included in the asset pool because it is a transformed asset as it was ordinarily used for the purposes of shelter for the family.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_64"></a>64 It is trite law that the requirement of ordinary use would not be satisfied if the parties’ use of or stay at the property was occasional or casual: see <em>TNC v TND</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/18885-SSP.xml')">[2016] SGHCF 9</a> (at [18]). This was reiterated in the recent decision of <em>CXR v CXQ</em> where Debbie Ong JAD (at [26]) noted as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Section 112 of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2020 Rev Ed) (“Women’s Charter”) provides the court the ancillary power, upon a grant of divorce, to divide the matrimonial economic gains of the marriage. Assets acquired <em>during</em> marriage by either party’s <em>efforts</em> are quintessential matrimonial assets subject to division. Assets acquired before the marriage may be subject to the division exercise if they were substantially improved during the marriage by the other spouse or by both spouses, or if they were ordinarily used or enjoyed by both parties or their children while residing together for purposes such as shelter, transport, household use, <em>etc</em>. On the latter, such “use” must be relatively prolonged rather than casual (<em>USB v USA</em> at [24]).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_65"></a>65 The Wife says that she moved back to RP1 with E in November 2019 when both she and the Husband were already facing numerous problems and the marriage had already severely broken down. By March 2020, the marriage had completely broken down and parties were embroiled in highly acrimonious disputes and/or legal proceedings.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_55" id="Ftn_55_1"><sup>[note: 55]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_66"></a>66 The evidence before me does not support a finding that RP1 was ordinarily used or enjoyed by <em>both parties</em> or one or more of their children while the parties are <em>residing together</em> for shelter within the meaning of s 112(10)(a)(i) of the Charter.. In fact, the evidence averred to by the Husband shows unequivocally that he did not reside at RP1 at all.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_56" id="Ftn_56_1"><sup>[note: 56]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_67"></a>67 Accordingly, I exclude RP1 from the asset pool.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">S/N2 – Riveredge Property 2<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_57" id="Ftn_57_1"><sup>[note: 57]</sup></a></span> (“RP2”)</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_68"></a>68 The Husband says that RP2 is a pre-marriage asset under <em>USB v USA</em>. Since the flat was paid or preferably maintained during the marriage by the Wife with income that would have been or gone to a quintessential matrimonial asset had it been saved up rather than expended on the pre-marital asset, the proportion of the value of the asset that was acquired during the marriage should go into the pool.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_58" id="Ftn_58_1"><sup>[note: 58]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_69"></a>69 The Wife says that RP2 is a pre-marital asset bought in 2007. The Husband had never lived in it, nor did he pay for any improvements.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_59" id="Ftn_59_1"><sup>[note: 59]</sup></a></span> The Wife says that RP2, which is owned jointly with her brother, was bought on 10 September 2007. This was long before the marriage.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_60" id="Ftn_60_1"><sup>[note: 60]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_70"></a>70 It is trite law that where an asset is partially paid for during the marriage by the owning spouse with income that would have been a quintessential matrimonial asset had it been saved up rather than expended on the pre-marriage asset, the proportion of the value of the asset that was acquired during the marriage should go into the pool: see <em>USA v USB</em> (at [70]). However, this principle is of no application to RP2 as the evidence shows that RP2 was fully paid for before the marriage.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_61" id="Ftn_61_1"><sup>[note: 61]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_71"></a>71 The Husband does not allege that RP2 was ordinarily used by both parties for shelter nor is there any evidence in that regard. The other means by which RP2 may be transformed is the substantial improvement exception. However, the evidence before me does not support a finding that RP2 has been substantially improved during the marriage by the <em>other party</em> (i.e., the Husband) or by <em>both parties</em> to the marriage within the meaning of s 112(10)(a)(ii) of the Charter.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_72"></a>72 Accordingly, I exclude RP2 from the asset pool.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">S/N 3 – Wife’s CPF<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_62" id="Ftn_62_1"><sup>[note: 62]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_73"></a>73 It is not disputed that the Wife’s CPF monies to be included in the asset pool is $235,981.25.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_63" id="Ftn_63_1"><sup>[note: 63]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">S/N 4 – Wife’s Bank Account Monies<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_64" id="Ftn_64_1"><sup>[note: 64]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_74"></a>74 The Wife has the following bank accounts:<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_65" id="Ftn_65_1"><sup>[note: 65]</sup></a></span></p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2-tblr" frame="all" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="10.56%"><col width="56.82%"><col width="32.62%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>S/No</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Description</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Balance</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">1</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">DBS Current Account No ~ 284-3</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">S$5,213.66</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">2</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">POSB Savings Account No ~ 965-2</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">S$502.29</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">3</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">POSB Account No ~ 491-4</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(joint account with mother)<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_66" id="Ftn_66_1"><sup>[note: 66]</sup></a></span></p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">S$6,789.44</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">4</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Standard Chartered Fixed Deposit Account No ~ 7137-5</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(joint account with mother)<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_67" id="Ftn_67_1"><sup>[note: 67]</sup></a></span></p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">S$200,000.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">5</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">OCBC 360 Account No ~ 0001</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">S$62,242.06</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">6</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">UOB One Account No ~ 465-6</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(joint account with the Husband)</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">S$1,105.14</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">7</p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Total (Bank Accounts):</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>S$275,852.59</b> </p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_75"></a>75 The Husband says that the entire sum of $275,852.59 should be included in the asset pool.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_68" id="Ftn_68_1"><sup>[note: 68]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_76"></a>76 The Wife’s position, as set out in the Joint Summary, is that only $67,958.01 should be included<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_69" id="Ftn_69_1"><sup>[note: 69]</sup></a></span> as the monies in POSB Account No ~ 491-4 and the Standard Chartered Fixed Deposit Account No ~ 137-5 are her mother’s monies which the Wife is entrusted with managing for the mother’s upkeep and maintenance.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_70" id="Ftn_70_1"><sup>[note: 70]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_77"></a>77 I note that in her 1<sup>st</sup> Affidavit of Assets and Means dated 13 October 2022, the Wife says that she transferred $200,000 from her OCBC 360 Account No ~ 0001 to a fixed deposit Standard Chartered Fixed Deposit Account No ~ 137-5 in August 2022.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_71" id="Ftn_71_1"><sup>[note: 71]</sup></a></span> This is a substantial sum of money that was expended by the Wife after IJ (30 June 2022) but before the ancillaries are concluded.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_78"></a>78 In <em>TNL v TNK</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/20026-SSP.xml')">[2017] SGCA 15</a>, the Court of Appeal observed (at [23]):</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Second, and with respect to items (c) to (g), the issue is how the court should deal with substantial sums expended by one spouse during the period: <b>(a) in which divorce proceedings are imminent; or (b) after interim judgment but before the ancillaries are concluded</b>. We are of the view that if, during these periods, and whether by way of gift or otherwise, one spouse expends a substantial sum, this sum must be returned to the asset pool if the other spouse is considered to have at least a putative interest in it and has not agreed, either expressly or impliedly, to the expenditure either before it was incurred or at any subsequent time. Furthermore, this remains the case regardless of whether: (a) the expenditure was a deliberate attempt to dissipate matrimonial assets; or (b) <b>the expenditure was for the benefit of the children or other relatives.</b> The spouse who makes such a payment must be prepared to bear it personally and in full. In the absence of consent, he or she cannot expect the other spouse to share in it.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[emphasis in bold added]</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_79"></a>79 In <em>UZN v UZM</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/25220-SSP.xml')">[2020] SGCA 109</a> (“<em>UZN v UZM</em>”), the Court of Appeal elaborated further (at [65]) as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Although the label of “dissipation” is commonly used to describe dispositions intended to put assets out of reach of the other spouse, a dissipation falling within the <b><em>TNL dicta</em></b> is not necessarily a culpable act. It may also not involve a non-disclosure. Instead, this category may be seen to encompass a disposition of matrimonial assets <b>during the relevant period</b> when one spouse has failed to obtain the other’s consent, even for “innocent” reasons, as illustrated in the hypothetical example above. Adding a sum back into the pool on the basis of the <em>TNL dicta</em> does not rest on the making of an adverse inference in the way we have described at [18] above.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[emphasis in bold added]</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_80"></a>80 In my judgment, the sum of $200,000 should be added back to the asset pool on the basis of the <em>TNL dicta</em>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_81"></a>81 As regards the monies in POSB Account No ~ 491-4, the Wife says that the monies belong solely to her mother. The Wife says that her mother is elderly and she is just a named joint owner so that she can assist her in the management of her funds. Having joint accounts with her makes it easier for the Wife to manage the funds she needs for her caregiving and medical care.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_72" id="Ftn_72_1"><sup>[note: 72]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_82"></a>82 In <em>USB v USA</em>, the Court of Appeal held (at [31]) as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">When a marriage is dissolved, in general <b>all the parties’ assets will be treated as matrimonial assets unless a party is able to prove that any particular asset was either not acquired during the marriage or was acquired through gift or inheritance and is therefore not a matrimonial asset.</b> The party who asserts that an asset is not a matrimonial asset or that only a part of its value should be included in the pool bears the burden of proving this on the balance of probabilities.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[emphasis in bold added]</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_83"></a>83 While the Wife says that the monies in POSB Account No ~ 491-4 belong solely to her mother, the latter has not made any affidavit averring to the same effect. The Wife bears the burden of proving that the monies are not a matrimonial asset. On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that she has discharged the burden on the balance of probabilities.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_84"></a>84 Accordingly, the monies in POSB Account No ~ 491-4 shall be included in the asset pool.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">S/N 5 – Wife’s Insurance Policies<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_73" id="Ftn_73_1"><sup>[note: 73]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_85"></a>85 The Husband says that the full value of the Wife’s Insurance Policies should be included since the Wife did not provide the pre-marital values.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_74" id="Ftn_74_1"><sup>[note: 74]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_86"></a>86 The Wife says the Insurance Policies are all pre-marital and incepted. prior to the marriage in 1987, 1996 and 2000.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_75" id="Ftn_75_1"><sup>[note: 75]</sup></a></span> The Wife avers that “these insurance policies were bought before marriage”,<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_76" id="Ftn_76_1"><sup>[note: 76]</sup></a></span> which I understand to mean that all the premiums were fully paid before marriage. On this basis, I exclude the Wife’s Insurance Policies from the asset pool.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">S/N 6 – Husband’s CPF<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_77" id="Ftn_77_1"><sup>[note: 77]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_87"></a>87 The Husband says that his CPF as at 30 June 2022 (IJ) dated is $336,487.69 and his CPF as at 4 February 2018 (wedding date) is $243,017.62. Hence the value of CPF monies to be included in the asset pool is $93,470.07 ($336,487.69 - $243,017.62).<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_78" id="Ftn_78_1"><sup>[note: 78]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_88"></a>88 The Wife says that there is an undervalue of the Husband’s CPF monies as the sum of $336,487.69 is as at 31 December 2021 based on the CPF statement exhibited by the Husband at page 34 of his 1<sup>st</sup> Affidavit of Assets and Means.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_79" id="Ftn_79_1"><sup>[note: 79]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_89"></a>89 However, I note that in the Husband’s CPF statement attached to the Joint Summary, the balances in his CPF account as at 1 May 2022 and 31 July 2022 were roughly the same as the balances as at 31 December 2021.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_90"></a>90 Taking a broad-brush approach, I take the sum of $93,470.07<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_80" id="Ftn_80_1"><sup>[note: 80]</sup></a></span> as the Husband’s CPF monies to be included in the asset pool.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_91"></a>91 For completeness, I should point out that the Wife has also sought to argue that a sum of $7,560 should be included in the Husband’s CPF numbers as at 31 December 2021 as this is the amount that he owes Medisave.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_81" id="Ftn_81_1"><sup>[note: 81]</sup></a></span> In my respectful view, it would be incorrect to conflate the concept of asset with liability. As the amount of $7,560 is an amount that he owes, it would be erroneous to treat it as an asset that he owns.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">S/N 7 – Husband’s Bank Account monies<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_82" id="Ftn_82_1"><sup>[note: 82]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_92"></a>92 It is not disputed that the amount of $27,699.10 in the Husband’s bank account should be included in the asset pool.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_83" id="Ftn_83_1"><sup>[note: 83]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_93"></a>93 However, the Wife asserts that the Husband did not make full and frank disclosure of all his bank accounts as the bank accounts of his business have not been disclosed.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_84" id="Ftn_84_1"><sup>[note: 84]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_94"></a>94 I shall deal with the issue of adverse inference separately.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">S/N 8 - Car<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_85" id="Ftn_85_1"><sup>[note: 85]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_95"></a>95 On the evidence before me, I take the net value of the car to be $12,000.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">S/N 9 – Husband’s business<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_86" id="Ftn_86_1"><sup>[note: 86]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_96"></a>96 There is no valuation of the Husband’s business.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">S/N 10 – Joint UOB One Account ~ 4656<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_87" id="Ftn_87_1"><sup>[note: 87]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_97"></a>97 According to the Wife, the balance in this account as at 31 July 2022 is $1,105.14.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_88" id="Ftn_88_1"><sup>[note: 88]</sup></a></span> Although, according to the Husband, the balance has dwindled to $382.43 as at 16 July 2023,<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_89" id="Ftn_89_1"><sup>[note: 89]</sup></a></span> I shall for the purpose of the division exercise adopt the balance of $1,105.14 since that is the balance closer to the IJ date.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_98"></a>98 The Wife submits that a total of $9,980 should be added back to this account as $8,000 of the Baby Bonus was removed unilaterally by the Husband for his personal expenses during the 3 years of litigation and $1,980 was utilized by the Husband to pay for his personal maid levies.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_90" id="Ftn_90_1"><sup>[note: 90]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_99"></a>99 The Husband says that the Baby Bonus monies were used for the baby’s expenses and levy for the maid and that the Wife was knowledgeable of the expenses.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_91" id="Ftn_91_1"><sup>[note: 91]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_100"></a>100 The Wife says that the Husband has taken a total of $9,980 over 3 years. Taking the value as stated, this works out to about $3,327 per year or $277 per month. I do not find the withdrawal of an average of about $277 per month to be so substantial as to fall within the <em>TNL</em> dicta. Accordingly, I decline to add the sum of $9,980 back to the account. In this regard, it would be helpful for parties to pay heed to the astute advice of the Court of Appeal in <em>UYQ v UYP</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/24104-SSP.xml')">[2020] SGCA 3</a> (at [4]):</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">In our view, it would assist the parties to find a way forward and put this painful chapter of their lives behind them by focusing on the <b><em>major details</em></b> as opposed to every conceivable detail under the sun. We caveat that this does not mean parties should swing to the other extreme by being remiss in submitting the relevant records. Put simply, there ought to be <em>reasonable accounting rigour that eschews flooding the court with details that would obscure rather than illuminate</em>. Henceforth, therefore, courts should discourage parties from applying the <em>ANJ v ANK</em> approach in a rigid and calculative manner. Parties would do well to understand that such an approach <b><em>detracts</em></b> from their respective cases instead of enhancing them.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_101"></a>101 As also noted in <em>UZN v UZM</em> (at [21]):</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Even though divorced parties are no longer spouses, there is every reason to treat one’s former spouse, and current co-parent of one’s children, with respect and a measure of give-and-take.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">The total pool of matrimonial assets </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_102"></a>102 The net value of the total pool of MAs with known values liable for division is set out in the table below:</p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2-tblr" frame="all" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="12.06%"><col width="37.06%"><col width="27.68%"><col width="23.2%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>S/No.</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Asset</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Value</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Total</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" colspan="3" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Joint Asset</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">1</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">UOB One Account No ~ 465-6</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$1,105.14</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>$1,105.14</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="b" colspan="4" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Assets in Wife’s name</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">2</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">CPF monies</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$235,981.25</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">3</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">DBS Current Account No ~ 284-3</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$5,213.66</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">4</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">POSB Savings Account No ~ 965-2</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$502.29</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">5</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">POSB Account No ~ 491-4</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$6,789.44</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">6</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Standard Chartered Fixed Deposit Account No ~ 7137-5</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$200,000.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">7</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">OCBC 360 Account No ~ 0001</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$62,242.06</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Sub-total</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$510,728.70</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>$510,728.70</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="b" colspan="4" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Assets in Husband’s name</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">6</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">CPF monies</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$93,470.07</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">7</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Bank Account monies</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$27,699.10</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">8</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Car</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$12,000</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">9</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Business</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">(Unknown)</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Sub-total (Known Values)</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$133,169.17</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>$133,169.17</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Total Value of MAs (Known Values)</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>$645,003.01</b> </p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Proportions of division</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_103"></a>103 In <em>ANJ v ANK</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/17620-SSP.xml')">[2015] SGCA 34</a> (“<em>ANJ v ANK</em>”), the Court of Appeal set out a structured approach towards the division of MAs under s 112 of the Charter. The structured approach involves three broad steps by which the ratio of the parties’ direct contributions is first ascertained, relative to that of the other party. This is followed by ascribing a second ratio of the parties’ indirect contributions, relative to that of the other party and finally deriving the parties’ overall contributions relative to each other by taking an average of the two ratios (see <em>Twiss, Christopher James Hans v Twiss, Yvonne Prendergast</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/17978-SSP.xml')">[2015] SGCA 52</a> at [17]).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_104"></a>104 The structured approach is applicable to this dual-income marriage.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Direct contributions</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_105"></a>105 The Wife’s direct contributions are tabulated as follows:</p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2-tblr" frame="all" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="15.9431886377275%"><col width="42.0284056811362%"><col width="42.0284056811362%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>S/No.</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Asset</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Direct Contributions</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">1</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">CPF monies</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$235,981.25</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">2</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">DBS Current Account No ~ 284-3</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$5,213.66</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">3</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">POSB Savings Account No ~ 965-2</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$502.29</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">4</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">POSB Account No ~ 491-4</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$6,789.44</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">5</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Standard Chartered Fixed Deposit Account No ~ 7137-5</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$200,000.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">6</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">OCBC 360 Account No ~ 0001</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$62,242.06</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">7</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">UOB One Account No ~ 465-6</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$552.57<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_92" id="Ftn_92_1"><sup>[note: 92]</sup></a></span></p> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">($1,105.14 divided by 2)</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Total</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>$511,281.27</b> </p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_106"></a>106 The Husband’s direct contributions are tabulated as follows:</p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2-tblr" frame="all" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="15.9431886377275%"><col width="42.0284056811362%"><col width="42.0284056811362%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>S/No.</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Asset</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Direct Contributions</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">1</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">CPF monies</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$93,470.07</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">2</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Bank Account monies</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$27,699.10</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">3</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Car</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$12,000</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">4</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">UOB One Account No ~ 465-6</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$552.57<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_93" id="Ftn_93_1"><sup>[note: 93]</sup></a></span></p> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">($1,105.14 divided by 2)</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">5</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Business</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">(Unknown)</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Total</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>$133,721.74</b> </p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_107"></a>107 In summary, the parties’ direct contributions to the total asset pool are as follows:</p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2-tblr" frame="all" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="27.2%"><col width="26.7%"><col width="24.32%"><col width="21.78%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>HUSBAND</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>WIFE</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Total</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$133,721.74</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$511,281.27</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$645,003.01</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">Ratio of Direct Contributions</p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">20.73%</p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">79.27%</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">100%</p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Indirect Contributions </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_108"></a>108 As noted by the Court of Appeal in <em>ARY v ARX</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/18603-SSP.xml')">[2016] SGCA 13</a> (at [55]), marriage is a partnership of efforts between two people and the determination of indirect contributions is necessarily an exercise in “broad strokes”. On the evidence before me and taking a broad-strokes approach, I find it fair to assign an indirect contributions ratio of 60 : 40 in favour of the Wife.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Average Ratio</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_109"></a>109 It is common ground between the parties that direct contributions should carry 70% weightage while indirect contributions carry 30% weightage.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_94" id="Ftn_94_1"><sup>[note: 94]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_110"></a>110 Applying the structured approach, the parties’ average percentage contributions as derived from the parties’ direct and indirect contributions represented in tabular form would be as follows:</p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2-tblr" frame="all" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="36.64%"><col width="32.7%"><col width="30.66%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"></p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>HUSBAND</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>WIFE</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Direct Contributions</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">20.73% </p> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">(weighted: 14.51%)</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">79.27%</p> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">(weighted: 55.49%)</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Indirect contributions</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">40</p> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">(weighted: 12%)</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">60</p> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">(weighted: 18%)</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Average percentage contributions</p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">26.51%</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">73.49%</p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Adverse inference</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_111"></a>111 It is trite law that the court has the power to draw adverse inference against either party whenever he or she is found to have failed to make full and frank disclosure of the MAs: see <em>ANJ v ANK</em> (at [29]). In <em>UZN v UZM</em>, the Court of Appeal set out at [18] (citing <em>BPC v BPB and another appeal</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/23037-SSP.xml')">[2019] 1 SLR 608</a> at [60]) that an adverse inference may be drawn where:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_111-p2_a"></a>(a) there is a substratum of evidence that establishes a <em>prima facie</em> case against the person against whom the inference is to be drawn; and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_111-p2_b"></a>(b) that person must have had some particular access to the information he is said to be hiding.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_112"></a>112 The Wife says that the Husband had access to the information he is hiding with regards to his business. There is also a substratum of evidence that the Husband has undisclosed stream of income revenue and assets in the business which he had not provided full and frank disclosure. The Husband had refused to declare the revenue generated by the business nor furnished the accounts from the business, including its Profit and Loss and business revenue. Further, the Husband has informed the Court at pre-trial conferences as well as in evidence that he is busy with numerous trials which would generate substantial revenue (all of which remains undeclared).<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_95" id="Ftn_95_1"><sup>[note: 95]</sup></a></span> The Wife contends that it is clear that the Husband’s business has value while the Husband asserted it to be $0. The Wife submits that an adverse inference of 10% uplift should be drawn against the Husband to divide the known MAs in just and equitable proportions.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_96" id="Ftn_96_1"><sup>[note: 96]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_113"></a>113 The Husband says that he has accounted for the value of his business in the interim maintenance application FC/SUM 816/2022 (“SUM 816”) by pegging his last salary to that in the 2019 NOA, i.e., $110,000.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_97" id="Ftn_97_1"><sup>[note: 97]</sup></a></span> However, I do not find this to be a satisfactory response to his obligation to make full and frank disclosure of accounts relating to the business which is a matrimonial asset. The value of his business should not be conflated with the salary that he receives from the business. Without the proper accounts or a valuation report, it would not be possible to determine the value of his business.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_114"></a>114 For the above reasons, I am of the view that an adverse inference is warranted for the Husband’s failure to provide full and frank disclosure of accounts relating to his business.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Giving effect to adverse inference</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_115"></a>115 As noted in <em>TYS v TYT</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/20112-SSP.xml')">[2017] SGHCF 7</a> (“<em>TYS v TYT</em>”) (at [28]):</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">The means by which an adverse inference may be given effect is fact-specific, including “by ordering a higher proportion of the disclosed assets to the other party, or, where possible, [by determining] the actual value of the undisclosed assets based on available information, and include such value in the pool of assets to be divided” (<em>Chan Yuen Boey v Sia Hee Soon</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/[2012] 3 SLR 0402.xml')">[2012] 3 SLR 402</a> at [21])</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_116"></a>116 At [45], the court stated further as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">As explained earlier, I decided to use the uplift approach to address the adverse inference because it was not practicable to come to a finite sum for the Husband’s non-disclosure. The cases adopting an uplift approach cover a broad range of facts. In <em>Au Kin Chung v Ho Kit Joo</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/53817-M.xml')">[2007] SGHC 150</a>, the High Court upheld the decision of the district judge who increased the wife’s share from 50% to 70% on account of husband’s failure to give full and frank disclosure of his assets (at [45]). In <em>Chan Pui Yin v Lim Tiong Kei</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/[2011] 4 SLR 0875.xml')">[2011] 4 SLR 875</a>, the wife was awarded a further 10% of the value of the disclosed assets of $10.95m (at [52]). Therefore, the wife was awarded 30% of all the remaining assets save for the matrimonial property, which was separately divided. While the general uplift approach may be criticised as being arbitrary since there is no objective value to which it may take reference (<em>AZZ v BAA</em> at [120]), I considered that some <b>degree of arbitrariness was inevitable as adverse inferences were drawn precisely to deal with situations of imperfect and incomplete information</b>, and discarding the uplift approach entirely may create a perverse incentive for parties to tactically craft non-attributable non-disclosure. In the final analysis, much would depend on the facts, and in determining the appropriate uplift, the court will be guided by, <em>inter alia</em>, the evidence before it as to the extent of non-disclosure relative to the value of the disclosed assets.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[emphasis in bold added]</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_117"></a>117 In the present case, without proper accounts or a valuation report, it would not be practical to ascribe a finite sum to the business. In the circumstances, I find it appropriate to give effect to the adverse inference drawn against the Husband by ordering a larger proportion of the disclosed assets to the Wife. As noted in <em>TYS v TYT</em>, some degree of arbitrariness is inevitable as adverse inferences are drawn precisely to deal with situations of imperfect and incomplete information. Having regard to all the circumstances, I award an uplift of 10% to the Wife.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Final ratio</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_118"></a>118 Taking into account the uplift of 10% awarded to the Wife, the final ratio between the Husband and the Wife is tabulated as follows:</p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2-tblr" frame="all" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="36.627325465093%"><col width="32.7065413082617%"><col width="30.6661332266453%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>HUSBAND</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>WIFE</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Direct Contributions</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">20.73% </p> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">(weighted: 14.51%)</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">79.27%</p> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">(weighted: 55.49%)</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Indirect contributions</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">40</p> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">(weighted: 12%)</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">60</p> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">(weighted: 18%)</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Average percentage contributions</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">26.51%</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">73.49%</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Uplift </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">10%</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Final ratio</p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">16.51%</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">83.49%</p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Consequential orders</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_119"></a>119 So that parties can move on amicably, the Wife has proposed that:<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_98" id="Ftn_98_1"><sup>[note: 98]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_119-p2_a"></a>(a) The joint UOB Bank Account ~ 465~6 be closed with monies divided 50-50 between the parties; and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_119-p2_b"></a>(b) Each party to retain all assets in his/her own names.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_120"></a>120 Given that the final ratio is 83.49% in favour of the Wife (which well exceeds the total value of assets in her name), I granted an order-in-terms of the Wife’s proposals.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_121"></a>121 In my brief grounds, I commended the Wife for demonstrating a spirit of give and take. Likewise, I am heartened to note that the Husband did not appeal the decision even though he did not get what he had asked for. The forbearance shown by the Husband is a helpful step towards reducing conflicts, which is essential for parties to heal and move on.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Child Maintenance</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_122"></a>122 On 16 March 2022, seven weeks after the Husband commenced these divorce proceedings,<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_99" id="Ftn_99_1"><sup>[note: 99]</sup></a></span> the Wife filed SUM 816 seeking backdated maintenance of $33,418.03 (being the Husband’s 50% share of E’s expenses from June 2020 to October 2022) and a monthly sum of $2,250.72 commencing 1 November 2022 (being the Husband’s 50% share of E’s expenses).<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_100" id="Ftn_100_1"><sup>[note: 100]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_123"></a>123 On 7 November 2022, the learned District Judge Michelle Elias Solomon (“DJ Elias”) found E’s reasonable expenses to be $2,501<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_101" id="Ftn_101_1"><sup>[note: 101]</sup></a></span> and ordered the Husband to pay $800 per month, being the Husband’s 32% share of E’s maintenance.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_102" id="Ftn_102_1"><sup>[note: 102]</sup></a></span> DJ Elias ordered the maintenance to commence from the date of the application, i.e. 16 March 2022, as the learned judge found that it was not appropriate for any maintenance orders to pre-date this application.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_103" id="Ftn_103_1"><sup>[note: 103]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_124"></a>124 At the ancillary hearing, the Husband was happy to adopt the calculations made by DJ Elias<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_104" id="Ftn_104_1"><sup>[note: 104]</sup></a></span> but proposed a reduction of the maintenance to $730 per month due to two disputed items of expenditure.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_105" id="Ftn_105_1"><sup>[note: 105]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_125"></a>125 The Wife, on the other hand, submitted E’s reasonable expenses to be $4,558.81<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_106" id="Ftn_106_1"><sup>[note: 106]</sup></a></span> per month and that the Husband’s 50% share would amount to $2,280.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_107" id="Ftn_107_1"><sup>[note: 107]</sup></a></span> Notwithstanding that the issue of backdated maintenance had already been considered and determined by DJ Elias, the Wife sought to re-litigate the issue by seeking once again for the child’s maintenance to be backdated to June 2020.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_108" id="Ftn_108_1"><sup>[note: 108]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_126"></a>126 In this regard, the following observations of the Court of Appeal in <em>AXM v AXO</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/[2014] SGCA 0013.xml')">[2014] SGCA 13</a> are apposite:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">20 … It is clear in our view that once a so-called interim maintenance order under s 113(<em>a</em>) has been granted, it is a final and binding order of court as to the amount and form of maintenance payments during the period pending the resolution of ancillary matters, and regulates the parties’ financial obligations with finality for that limited period…</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">21 By backdating the Final Maintenance Order such that it commenced during a period when a prior court order as to maintenance was in force, the DJ therefore effectively created a situation where there were two different but equally binding obligations operating on the Husband. In our view, the DJ, with respect, therefore erred in backdating the Final Maintenance Order on the facts of this case…</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_127"></a>127 For similar reasons, I found that it would be erroneous to backdate the maintenance order in the manner requested by the Wife as this would effectively create two different but equally binding obligations operating on the Husband.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_128"></a>128 As regards the apportionment of maintenance, it is an established principle that the financial obligations of parents depend on their financial capacity. As noted in <em>WBU v WBT</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/29255-SSP.xml')">[2023] SGHCF 3</a> (at [38]):</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">… financial capacity need not be rigidly ascertained by sole reference to income alone. Consistent with s 69(4)(b) of the Charter, the court should consider the parties’ “income, earning capacity (if any), property and other financial resources”, as well as significant liabilities and financial commitments. For instance, a party who earns no income but has substantial savings or had received substantial inheritance would well be able to afford to bear a higher burden of the maintenance obligation, if reasonable in the circumstances of the case. The court should also have regard to the assets received by parties after the division of their matrimonial assets.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_129"></a>129 Having considered the financial capacity of the parties, I found it fair to apportion the maintenance equally between them. Given that I have ordered a shared care and control arrangement where E is looked after by each parent on an alternate-week basis, it is unnecessary to dwell into each item of living expenses.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_130"></a>130 In the circumstances, I made the following orders in respect of maintenance for the child:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_130-p2_a"></a>(a) Save as provided in sub-para (b), each party shall bear their respective costs for the child’s living expenses when he is under his or her respective care;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_130-p2_b"></a>(b) The parties shall bear the child’s education, enrichment, medical and dental expenses equally.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_130-p2_c"></a>(c) Save for <em>ad-hoc</em> visits to the doctor throughout the year for the usual cough/cold or other minor symptoms that do not require specialised or regular medical care, the parties shall consult with each other before incurring expenses in relation to (b).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_131"></a>131 This order shall take effect and supersede the interim maintenance order from January 2024.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Spousal maintenance</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_132"></a>132 There shall be no spousal maintenance for the Wife and the Husband.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Costs</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_133"></a>133 I made no order as to costs.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_1_1" id="Ftn_1">[note: 1]</a></sup>Husband’s 1<sup>st</sup> Affidavit of Assets and Means dated 7 October 2022 (1AOM/F1) at [2].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>Wife’s 1<sup>st</sup> Affidavit of Assets and Means dated 13 October 2022 (1AOM)(M1) at [2].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions dated 30 June 2023 at [34].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_4_1" id="Ftn_4">[note: 4]</a></sup>Husband’s Written Submissions (FC/SUM 1112/2023) dated 28 June 2023 at [32].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_5_1" id="Ftn_5">[note: 5]</a></sup>Husband’s Written Submissions (FC/D 399/2022) dated 30 June 2023 at [4].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_6_1" id="Ftn_6">[note: 6]</a></sup>Husband’s Written Submissions (FC/D 399/2022) dated 30 June 2023 at [4(2)].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_7_1" id="Ftn_7">[note: 7]</a></sup>Husband’s Written Submissions (FC/D 399/2022) dated 30 June 2023 at [5].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_8_1" id="Ftn_8">[note: 8]</a></sup>Husband’s Written Submissions (FC/D 399/2022) dated 30 June 2023 at [6], [8] to [10].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_9_1" id="Ftn_9">[note: 9]</a></sup>Husband’s Written Submissions (FC/D 399/2022) dated 30 June 2023 at [7].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_10_1" id="Ftn_10">[note: 10]</a></sup>Husband’s Written Submissions (FC/D 399/2022) dated 30 June 2023 at [7].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_11_1" id="Ftn_11">[note: 11]</a></sup>Husband’s Written Submissions (FC/D 399/2022) dated 30 June 2023 at [15].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_12_1" id="Ftn_12">[note: 12]</a></sup>Husband’s Written Submissions (FC/D 399/2022) dated 30 June 2023 at [16].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_13_1" id="Ftn_13">[note: 13]</a></sup>Husband’s Written Submissions (FC/D 399/2022) dated 30 June 2023 at [19].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_14_1" id="Ftn_14">[note: 14]</a></sup>Husband’s Written Submissions (FC/D 399/2022) dated 30 June 2023 at [22].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_15_1" id="Ftn_15">[note: 15]</a></sup>Husband’s Written Submissions (FC/D 399/2022) dated 30 June 2023 at [41].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_16_1" id="Ftn_16">[note: 16]</a></sup>Husband’s Written Submissions (FC/D 399/2022) dated 30 June 2023 at [4].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_17_1" id="Ftn_17">[note: 17]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions dated 30 June 2023 at [73].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_18_1" id="Ftn_18">[note: 18]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions dated 30 June 2023 at [58].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_19_1" id="Ftn_19">[note: 19]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions dated 30 June 2023 at [59].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_20_1" id="Ftn_20">[note: 20]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions dated 30 June 2023 at [60].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_21_1" id="Ftn_21">[note: 21]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions dated 30 June 2023 at [64].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_22_1" id="Ftn_22">[note: 22]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions dated 30 June 2023 at [68].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_23_1" id="Ftn_23">[note: 23]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions dated 30 June 2023 at [61].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_24_1" id="Ftn_24">[note: 24]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions dated 30 June 2023 at [62].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_25_1" id="Ftn_25">[note: 25]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions dated 30 June 2023 at [63].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_26_1" id="Ftn_26">[note: 26]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions dated 30 June 2023 at [69].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_27_1" id="Ftn_27">[note: 27]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions dated 30 June 2023 at [72].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_28_1" id="Ftn_28">[note: 28]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions dated 30 June 2023 at [76].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_29_1" id="Ftn_29">[note: 29]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions dated 30 June 2023 at [77].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_30_1" id="Ftn_30">[note: 30]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions dated 30 June 2023 at [77].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_31_1" id="Ftn_31">[note: 31]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions dated 30 June 2023 at [78].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_32_1" id="Ftn_32">[note: 32]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions dated 30 June 2023 at [79].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_33_1" id="Ftn_33">[note: 33]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions dated 30 June 2023 at [82].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_34_1" id="Ftn_34">[note: 34]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions dated 30 June 2023 at [73]; Husband’s Written Submissions (FC/D 399/2022) dated 30 June 2023 at [5] & [7].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_35_1" id="Ftn_35">[note: 35]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions dated 30 June 2023 at [72].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_36_1" id="Ftn_36">[note: 36]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions dated 30 June 2023 at [70]-[71].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_37_1" id="Ftn_37">[note: 37]</a></sup>Wife’s 2nd Affidavit of Assets and Means dated 3 April 2023 (2AOM)(M2) at [113] - [123].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_38_1" id="Ftn_38">[note: 38]</a></sup>Wife’s 2nd Affidavit of Assets and Means dated 3 April 2023 (2AOM)(M2) at [122].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_39_1" id="Ftn_39">[note: 39]</a></sup>Wife’s 2nd Affidavit of Assets and Means dated 3 April 2023 (2AOM)(M2) at [123].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_40_1" id="Ftn_40">[note: 40]</a></sup>Wife’s 2nd Affidavit of Assets and Means dated 3 April 2023 (2AOM)(M2) at [101].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_41_1" id="Ftn_41">[note: 41]</a></sup>Wife’s 1<sup>st</sup> Affidavit of Assets and Means dated 13 October 2022 (1AOM)(M1) at [89].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_42_1" id="Ftn_42">[note: 42]</a></sup>Wife’s 1<sup>st</sup> Affidavit of Assets and Means dated 13 October 2022 (1AOM)(M1) at [90].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_43_1" id="Ftn_43">[note: 43]</a></sup>Wife’s 1<sup>st</sup> Affidavit of Assets and Means dated 13 October 2022 (1AOM)(M1) at [95].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_44_1" id="Ftn_44">[note: 44]</a></sup><em>WAG v WAH</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/27153-SSP.xml')">[2022] SGFC 17</a> (at [118]).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_45_1" id="Ftn_45">[note: 45]</a></sup><em>WAG v WAH</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/27153-SSP.xml')">[2022] SGFC 17</a> (at [119]).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_46_1" id="Ftn_46">[note: 46]</a></sup><em>WAG v WAH</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/27153-SSP.xml')">[2022] SGFC 17</a> (at [122]).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_47_1" id="Ftn_47">[note: 47]</a></sup><em>WAG v WAH</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/27153-SSP.xml')">[2022] SGFC 17</a> (at [98]).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_48_1" id="Ftn_48">[note: 48]</a></sup><em>WAG v WAH</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/27153-SSP.xml')">[2022] SGFC 17</a> (at [123]).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_49_1" id="Ftn_49">[note: 49]</a></sup><em>WAG v WAH</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/27153-SSP.xml')">[2022] SGFC 17</a> (at [124]).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_50_1" id="Ftn_50">[note: 50]</a></sup>Joint Summary at p 2.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_51_1" id="Ftn_51">[note: 51]</a></sup>Husband’s Written Submissions (FC/D 399/2022) dated 30 June 2023 at [53]; Joint Summary at p 2.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_52_1" id="Ftn_52">[note: 52]</a></sup>Joint Summary at p 2; Wife’s Written Submissions dated 30 June 2023 at [124]-[128]; Wife’s 1<sup>st</sup> Affidavit of Assets and Means dated 13 October 2022 (1AOM)(M1) at [4(1)].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_53_1" id="Ftn_53">[note: 53]</a></sup>Wife’s 1<sup>st</sup> Affidavit of Assets and Means dated 13 October 2022 (1AOM)(M1) at [4(1)].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_54_1" id="Ftn_54">[note: 54]</a></sup>Joint Summary at p 2.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_55_1" id="Ftn_55">[note: 55]</a></sup>Wife’s Affidavit dated 10 December 2022 (SUM 3944) at [14].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_56_1" id="Ftn_56">[note: 56]</a></sup>Husband’s Affidavit dated 27 December 2022 (SUM 3944) at [6].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_57_1" id="Ftn_57">[note: 57]</a></sup>Joint Summary at p 3.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_58_1" id="Ftn_58">[note: 58]</a></sup>Joint Summary at p 3; Husband’s Written Submissions (FC/D 399/2022) dated 30 June 2023 at [54].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_59_1" id="Ftn_59">[note: 59]</a></sup>Joint Summary 3; Wife’s Written Submissions dated 30 June 2023 at [118]-[123].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_60_1" id="Ftn_60">[note: 60]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions dated 30 June 2023 at [119]; Wife’s 1<sup>st</sup> Affidavit of Assets and Means dated 13 October 2022 (1AOM)(M1) at [A4(2)].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_61_1" id="Ftn_61">[note: 61]</a></sup>Wife’s Affidavit dated 10 December 2022 (SUM 3944) at [15]-[19]; Wife’s 1<sup>st</sup> Affidavit of Assets and Means dated 13 October 2022 (1AOM)(M1) at Tab C.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_62_1" id="Ftn_62">[note: 62]</a></sup>Joint Summary at p 4.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_63_1" id="Ftn_63">[note: 63]</a></sup>Joint Summary at p 4.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_64_1" id="Ftn_64">[note: 64]</a></sup>Joint Summary at pp 4-6.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_65_1" id="Ftn_65">[note: 65]</a></sup>Wife’s 1<sup>st</sup> Affidavit of Assets and Means dated 13 October 2022 (1AOM)(M1) at [A(4)].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_66_1" id="Ftn_66">[note: 66]</a></sup>Wife’s 1<sup>st</sup> Affidavit of Assets and Means dated 13 October 2022 (1AOM)(M1) at [14].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_67_1" id="Ftn_67">[note: 67]</a></sup>Wife’s 1<sup>st</sup> Affidavit of Assets and Means dated 13 October 2022 (1AOM)(M1) at [14].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_68_1" id="Ftn_68">[note: 68]</a></sup>Joint Summary at p 4.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_69_1" id="Ftn_69">[note: 69]</a></sup>Joint Summary at pp 4-6; Wife’s Written Submissions dated 30 June 2023 at [131(b)].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_70_1" id="Ftn_70">[note: 70]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions dated 30 June 2023 at [130].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_71_1" id="Ftn_71">[note: 71]</a></sup>Wife’s 1<sup>st</sup> Affidavit of Assets and Means dated 13 October 2022 (1AOM)(M1) at [16].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_72_1" id="Ftn_72">[note: 72]</a></sup>Wife’s 1<sup>st</sup> Affidavit of Assets and Means dated 13 October 2022 (1AOM)(M1) at [15].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_73_1" id="Ftn_73">[note: 73]</a></sup>Joint Summary at p 5.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_74_1" id="Ftn_74">[note: 74]</a></sup>Joint Summary at p 6.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_75_1" id="Ftn_75">[note: 75]</a></sup>Joint Summary at pp 6-7; Wife’s 1<sup>st</sup> Affidavit of Assets and Means dated 13 October 2022 (1AOM)(M1) at [A.4], [B.1.11], [B.1.12] and Tab D.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_76_1" id="Ftn_76">[note: 76]</a></sup>Wife’s 1<sup>st</sup> Affidavit of Assets and Means dated 13 October 2022 (1AOM)(M1) at [B.1.12].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_77_1" id="Ftn_77">[note: 77]</a></sup>Joint Summary at p 6.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_78_1" id="Ftn_78">[note: 78]</a></sup>Joint Summary at p 7-8.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_79_1" id="Ftn_79">[note: 79]</a></sup>Joint Summary at p 7.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_80_1" id="Ftn_80">[note: 80]</a></sup>Clerical error in brief grounds corrected.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_81_1" id="Ftn_81">[note: 81]</a></sup>Joint Summary at p 8.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_82_1" id="Ftn_82">[note: 82]</a></sup>Joint Summary at p 9.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_83_1" id="Ftn_83">[note: 83]</a></sup>Joint Summary at p 9.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_84_1" id="Ftn_84">[note: 84]</a></sup>Joint Summary at p 7.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_85_1" id="Ftn_85">[note: 85]</a></sup>Joint Summary at p 10.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_86_1" id="Ftn_86">[note: 86]</a></sup>Joint Summary at p 11.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_87_1" id="Ftn_87">[note: 87]</a></sup>Joint Summary at p 11-12.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_88_1" id="Ftn_88">[note: 88]</a></sup>Wife’s 1<sup>st</sup> Affidavit of Assets and Means dated 13 October 2022 (1AOM)(M1) at [B.14] at p 10; Joint Summary at p 11.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_89_1" id="Ftn_89">[note: 89]</a></sup>Joint Summary at p 10.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_90_1" id="Ftn_90">[note: 90]</a></sup>Joint Summary at pp 11-12.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_91_1" id="Ftn_91">[note: 91]</a></sup>Joint Summary at p 11.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_92_1" id="Ftn_92">[note: 92]</a></sup>On the treatment of joint account: see <em>WFE v WFF</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/27720-SSP.xml')">[2022] SGHCF 15</a> (at [10]).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_93_1" id="Ftn_93">[note: 93]</a></sup>On the treatment of joint account: see <em>WFE v WFF</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/27720-SSP.xml')">[2022] SGHCF 15</a> (at [10]).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_94_1" id="Ftn_94">[note: 94]</a></sup>Joint Summary at p 13; Wife’s Written Submissions dated 30 June 2023 at [135].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_95_1" id="Ftn_95">[note: 95]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions dated 30 June 2023 at [142].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_96_1" id="Ftn_96">[note: 96]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions dated 30 June 2023 at [144]; Joint Summary at pp 9 & 11.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_97_1" id="Ftn_97">[note: 97]</a></sup>Joint Summary at p 11.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_98_1" id="Ftn_98">[note: 98]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions dated 30 June 2023 at [147].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_99_1" id="Ftn_99">[note: 99]</a></sup>Decision of with brief grounds (SUM 816) dated 7 November 2022 at [50].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_100_1" id="Ftn_100">[note: 100]</a></sup>Decision of with brief grounds (SUM 816) dated 7 November 2022 at [6] & [7].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_101_1" id="Ftn_101">[note: 101]</a></sup>Decision of with brief grounds (SUM 816) dated 7 November 2022 at [33].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_102_1" id="Ftn_102">[note: 102]</a></sup>Decision of with brief grounds (SUM 816) dated 7 November 2022 at [45].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_103_1" id="Ftn_103">[note: 103]</a></sup>Decision of with brief grounds (SUM 816) dated 7 November 2022 at [50].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_104_1" id="Ftn_104">[note: 104]</a></sup>Husband’s Written Submissions (FC/D 399/2022) dated 30 June 2023 at [60].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_105_1" id="Ftn_105">[note: 105]</a></sup>Husband’s Written Submissions (FC/D 399/2022) dated 30 June 2023 at [65].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_106_1" id="Ftn_106">[note: 106]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions dated 30 June 2023 at [112].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_107_1" id="Ftn_107">[note: 107]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions dated 30 June 2023 at [113].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_108_1" id="Ftn_108">[note: 108]</a></sup>Wife’s Written Submissions dated 30 June 2023 at [114].</p></div></content></root> | 1288 |
Links from other tables
- 2 rows from _item in fc_judgments_version