WLL v WLM [2023] SGHCF 19

Outcome: Orders Made.

Facts

1           The Child of the marriage was 21 years old and was pursuing her undergraduate studies in Singapore. Parties had agreed on all child-related issues and only the determination of ancillary matters remained.

Court’s Decision:

2            Husband’s late disclosure of his assets may be a breach of his duty of disclosure and a relevant consideration for costs, but not necessarily for the drawing of an adverse inference. A breach of the duty of full and frank disclosure alone does not automatically result in the drawing of an adverse inference.: at [7].

3            As the Joint Account was not considered a matrimonial asset by parties, transactions within those accounts, whatever the amount, is irrelevant. Dissipation of funds from matrimonial assets into that Joint Account would have been relevant.: at [9].

4            An adverse inference cannot be used as a remedy to a lapse in the interlocutory process. If it is the Wife’s case that the Husband had been using his mother’s account to amass his own wealth, the burden lies on her to seek discovery.: at [9].

5            The assessment of indirect financial contribution ought not descend into an exercise of fault-finding. In assessing indirect contributions, the Court must consider only the facts and circumstances of the case.: at [20].

6            Maintenance is not an insurance policy. If there is a material change in circumstances, the law allows for variation. The court will not make contingent orders in the event of ill health. As the Wife is sufficiently capable of maintaining herself, there be no orders as to maintenance.: at [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.