WQP v WQQ [2024] SGHC(A) 34

Outcome: Appeal Allowed in part.

Facts

1      The parties married in Hong Kong in 2010 and have two children aged 14 and 11. IJ was granted in 2020. The issues on appeal were the handover arrangements for the children’s access, the ratio of the parties’ indirect contributions, and the division of matrimonial assets.

Court’s Decision:

2      In an appropriate case, it is open to the court to use its discretion to exclude from the pool of matrimonial assets an asset which would otherwise have fallen within that pool, but this is a power that is used very sparingly by the court and only in special circumstances.: at [16].

3      The mere fact that a matrimonial asset was acquired after separation does not, without more, justify the exclusion of that asset from the matrimonial pool. The circumstances of separation can instead be relevant when the court considers the parties’ indirect contributions to the marriage in deciding the proportions of division of the matrimonial pool.: at [20].

4      Facilitative orders can only go so far. The more fundamental need is to repair the Husband’s relationship with the Children, and this should be done with the assistance of therapeutic services. The whole family (i.e., the Husband, the Wife and the Children) should undergo counselling so that the counsellor would have the benefit of hearing from the Children and both parents, and work with all the family members.: at [25].

5      The Husband and Wife had made approximately equal contributions, with each playing an active role in the Children’s lives over the various stages in the marriage. Based on the Judge’s findings, a fair ratio to be assigned as the parties’ indirect contributions should have been at least 50:50.: at [29] to [30].

6      A quintessential matrimonial asset is “quintessential” in character as it wholly represents the gains of the marital partnership, being acquired by the efforts of either or both spouses during the marriage. These assets would fall within s 112(10)(b) of the Charter.: at [37] and [40].

7      Assets acquired before marriage and assets acquired by gift or inheritance are, without more, not related to marriage, and are not the material gains of the marital partnership. However, if these assets are substantially improved during the marriage, they attain some connection to the marriage and are liable to division.: at [38].

8      The notions of “quintessential matrimonial assets” and “transformed matrimonial assets” are distinct. The former are the material gains of the marriage partnership while the latter may not always, or fully, represent the material gains of the marriage. Although both categories are matrimonial assets to be included in the pool for division, in appropriate cases, the distinction between the two categories may be relevant when the court considers which “methodology” of division to adopt.: at [42].

9      As a result of the evidentiary gaps, the Husband could not show with any precision what proportion of the assets or what specific assets in the matrimonial pool could be attributed to his pre-marriage assets. The Hong Kong accounts were themselves commingled, containing income earned by the Husband both before and during the marriage.: at [56].

10     The court’s power to divide assets is exercised over the material gains of the marital partnership; crediting the Husband with direct contributions for his pre-marriage assets does not of itself address the fact that the pool consists of not only the material gains of the marriage but pre-marriage assets as well.: at [67].

11     Pre-marriage assets are not matrimonial assets and not the material gains of the marital partnership, but in the present case, they have been included in the pool due to commingling and the lack of evidence identifying them as distinct assets.: at [69].

12     The Husband’s alternative proposal to accord greater weightage to direct contributions could possibly also achieve a similar result, but it is a more cumbersome process which also contains a measure of artificiality. Shifting the average ratio in favour of the Husband is principled and consistent with the broad-brush approach affirmed in ANJ.: at [75].

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.