sg-crest A Singapore Government Agency Website
Official website links end with
Secure websites use HTTPS
Look for a lock () or https:// as an added precaution. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
Note: To search for hearing details for a specific case, visit the hearing list page.

UZO v UZP [2019] SGHCF 27

Outcome: Orders made.  


1            The matters that lie for determination are the division of matrimonial assets, maintenance of the Children and the Wife, and costs. One of the notable issues relating to the division of matrimonial assets is whether an adverse inference should be drawn against the Husband for his failure to make full and frank disclosure of his assets as the Joint Valuation of his shares in 6 companies relied on unaudited financial statements.

Court’s Decision:

2            It is observed that while the two High Court cases of Evergreat Construction Co Pte Ltd v Presscrete Engineering Pte Ltd [2006] 1 SLR(R) 634 and Quek Kwee Kee Victoria (in her personal capacity and as executor of the state of Quek Kiat Siong, deceased) and another v Quek Khuay Chuah [2014] 3 SLR 1 stand for the proposition that parties who have jointly appointed an expert to adjudicate on a particular matter can only challenge that expert’s determination on the grounds of fraud or collusion, neither case concerned joint valuations in the family law context. In both cases, the joint valuations were conducted as part of settlement agreements which the parties entered into: at [22] and [23].  The cases were distinguished as the Wife in this case did not agree to the joint valuation as part of a freely negotiated agreement between them and the process of valuation had been led and managed by the Husband.

3            Where the party applying for an adverse inference to be drawn does not demonstrate that the other party’s failure to furnish relevant documents would have led to different valuations, or that the valuation report cannot be relied upon for any other reason, e.g., that it is a product of fraud or collusion or is manifestly erroneous, the court will find it not in the interest of fairness and justice to order a further valuation or to draw an adverse inference: at [27].

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.


Share this page: