NK v NL [2007] SGCA 35

Outcome: Appeal allowed in part

Facts

1 The appellant wife appealed against the orders made by the trial judge on the division of matrimonial assets, and the maintenance, custody and care and control of the children. The crux of the appellant wife’s case in relation to the division of matrimonial assets is that the total matrimonial assets available for division have not been properly identified and have been quantified to her prejudice. 

Court’s Decision:

2 The Court of Appeal acknowledged that the power to order the division of matrimonial assets under s 112 of the Women’s Charter (353, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the Act”) is founded on the prevailing ideology of marriage as an equal co-operative partnership of efforts for mutual benefit. The contributions of both spouses are equally recognized whether he or she concentrates on the economics or homemaking role, as both roles must be performed equally well if the marriage is to flourish: at [20].

3 There are two distinct methodologies to attribute indirect contributions to the division of the matrimonial assets: the global assessment methodology and the classification methodology: at [30].

4 Under the global assessment methodology, the courts duty is to (a) identify and pool all the matrimonial assets pursuant to s 112(10) of the Act; (b) assess the net value of the pool of assets; (c) determine a just and equitable division in the light of all the circumstances of the case; and (d) decide on the most convenient way to achieve these proportions of division. The percentage of indirect contributions is applied without distinction to all matrimonial assets: at [31].

5 Under the classification methodology, the court apportions classes of matrimonial assets separately, for example, the matrimonial home, cash in bank accounts, shares, and businesses, etc. Any direct financial contributions and indirect contributions are considered in relation to each class of assets. Where the classification methodology is used, only the direct contributions may vary. This methodology would be appropriate where there are multiple classes of assets, and where the parties have made different contributions: at [32] and [35].

6 The adoption of either methodology is underscored by a principled approach and neither methodology is superior to the other. Both are consistent with the legislative framework provided by s 112 of the Act. In the final analysis, the facts and circumstances of the case at hand are of primary importance. Regardless of the methodology adopted, the paramount aim is to ensure that the matrimonial assets concerned are divided in a just and equitable manner: at [33].

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.