Outcome: Appeal allowed in part
1 Parties filed cross-appeals against the District Judge’s (“DJ”) decision on the ancillary matters. One of the issues raised by the Husband on appeal was that the Wife ought not to be entitled to any share in the matrimonial home, which had been purchased about two years after parties’ marriage, as he had solely paid for it.
2 The High Court clarified the observation in UQP v UQQ  SGHCF 7 (“UQP v UQQ”) that there are unusual cases in which the formula in ANJ v ANK  SGCA 34 (“ANJ approach”) should not be applied.
3 It was inappropriate in UQP v UQQ to apply the ANJ approach as it could not be said that the non-paying party’s non-financial direct or indirect contributions had directly or indirectly assisted or enabled the paying party to earn the money that was used to purchase the asset in question – in that case, the property had been purchased by the paying party six years and seven months before the marriage: at  and .
4 It is not an “unusual” case like UQP v UQQ in which the ANJ approach ought not be applied, if the non-paying party had indirectly assisted the paying party in purchasing the matrimonial home. For instance, in the period leading up to the purchase of the matrimonial home, if the non-paying party’s contributions had helped to relieve the paying party of the physical and financial burden of caring for the child, this would have allowed the paying party more flexibility and freedom to pursue his or her career. In such situation, awarding the non-paying party a share in the value of the matrimonial home would not be unjust or inappropriate: at  and .
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.