CLD v CLE [2021] SGHCF 12

Outcome: Orders made

Facts

1 The Wife’s application concerned the operative date for determining the pool of matrimonial assets under s 112(10)(b) of the Women’s Charter 1961. At the hearing, the Wife submitted that the date for determining the pool of matrimonial assets should be the date: (a) parties discussed and agreed to proceed to a divorce; (b) parties took off their wedding rings; or (c) the Wife moved out of the matrimonial home to another property she purchased and held solely.

Court’s Decision:

2 The court held that the operative date for determining the pool of matrimonial assets was the date on which the Wife moved out of the matrimonial home to the other property.

3 There are four possible operative dates in determining the pool of matrimonial assets under s 112(10)(b) of the Women’s Charter 1961: (a) the date of separation; (b) the date of filing of the writ of divorce; (c) the date of interim judgment; or (d) the date of the ancillary matters hearing. The starting point or default position is to adopt the date of interim judgment, unless the circumstances of justice of the case justifies otherwise, as the interim judgment terminates the marriage contract and shows that parties no longer intend to jointly accumulate matrimonial assets. Such approach brings certainty for parties to arrange their financial affairs and allows the court flexibility to ensure justice in each case in a systematic manner: at [19].

4 In determining the operative date for ascertaining the pool of matrimonial assets, the focus is on when the marriage can be treated as “practically at an end” – this can be identifiable by three indicia: there being no longer any matrimonial home, no consortium vitae, and no right on either side to marital rights. Any concerns of one party as to the other party’s lack of contributions, and unfairness of that party having a share in the paying party’s property, are more properly dealt with at a later stage of the division of matrimonial assets exercise: at [22] to [23].

The full text of the decision can be found here.

This summary is provided to assist the public to have a better understanding of the Court’s judgment. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s judgment.