WRQ v WRP [2024] SGHC(A) 38

Facts

1          The parties had divorced in 2013 and a consent order had been granted to the effect that the matrimonial home would not be sold for the next 18 years, until the youngest child reached the age of 21. However, the consent order was silent on who was to bear the mortgage repayments until such time that the matrimonial home was sold. The Husband applied to vary the consent order. A Judge of the Family Division of the High Court ordered that the Husband bear full responsibility for all outstanding mortgage instalment payments. The Husband appealed.

Court’s Decision:

2          The consent order is silent on how the mortgage repayments should be borne by the parties. A variation that addresses a matter on which the consent order is silent does not necessarily alter the explicit terms in the original order and undermine the fundamental importance of finality of those orders. It may instead supplement the original order to render it workable.: at [42].

3          While marital agreements made in contemplation of divorce cannot be enforced in and of themselves, their terms constitute one of the factors that the court should take into account in dividing the parties’ matrimonial assets. In determining a variation of a consent order which is silent on a particular matter, the parties’ knowledge and intentions can be taken into account. However, this is not a strict application of principles of contractual interpretation. The court is not constrained by the strict requirements in contract law on implying a term. Evidence of parties’ knowledge and intention at the time of the agreement and consent order plays a most significant role in aiding the court exercising its discretion under s112(4).: at [48],[49],[50],[51].

4          On the evidence, the court found that there was no common understanding at the time of the consent order that the Husband would bear sole responsibility for the mortgage instalments, or that the Wife would shoulder half of the repayments. Instead, the parties simply did not apply their minds to the issue of who was to bear the ongoing contributions to the mortgage and were content to go along with the status quo.: at [56],[57],[60].

5          As the parties were making equal contributions towards the mortgage instalments at the time that the settlement was negotiated in 2013 and continued to do so until 2016, it would not be contrary to what the parties would have agreed to at the time of granting the consent order for the parties to bear equal responsibility for the mortgage repayments.: at [69],[70].

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.