WRX v WRY [2024] SGHC(A) 22

Outcome: Orders Made

Facts

1     The parties married in 2002 and have two children. The Husband commenced divorce proceedings in 2020, and the Final Judgment was granted in 2023. The issues on appeal in relation to the division of matrimonial assets are the valuation of the Investment Accounts and of a "Sunlife" Policy, how the adverse inferences drawn against the Wife ought to be given effect, and the appropriate ratio of the parties’ indirect contributions.

Court’s Decision:

2     The Investment Accounts statements related to matters occurring before the date of the decision appealed against. Pursuant to s 41(4) of the SCJA, “special grounds” are required, being the three cumulative conditions of Ladd v Marshall: non-availability, relevance and materiality, and credibility. However, given the nature of AM hearings, the Ladd v Marshall principles may not apply stringently.: at [21].

3     The fall in value of the Investment Accounts was caused by the very poor performance of the underlying investments, rather than by any act of wrongful dissipation by the Husband. However, the sum withdrawn for legal fees must be returned to the matrimonial pool.: at [25].

4     Due to the Wife’s non-disclosure of evidence, a value that is more reflective of the value of the Sunlife Policy as a matrimonial asset cannot be obtained. Accordingly, the valuation reached by the Judge is not disturbed. However, this non-disclosure is considered when determining how the adverse inferences drawn against the Wife for her non-disclosures ought to be given effect.: at [29].

5     A proper discharge of the duty of full and frank disclosure by both parties is crucial in ensuring that the pool of assets to be divided reflects the material gains of the marital partnership. The breach of this duty goes to the very root and subject matter of s 112 of the Charter – the matrimonial assets to be divided.: at [35].

6     In the context of s 112 of the Charter, the adverse inference drawn for the failure to disclose one’s assets and means arises in the specific context of divorce and AM proceedings. The circumstances in which it is appropriate to draw an adverse inference and the consequence of drawing such an inference are specific to the AM proceedings.: at [37].

7     Sums that the court notionally restores to the pool of matrimonial assets as a consequence of giving effect to an adverse inference should not be credited as the direct contributions of the party against whom the adverse inference was made. This is because these sums are added to give effect to an adverse inference rather than from that party’s disclosure.: at [43].

8     While the Wife did disclose the May 2019 bank statements, selective disclosure is not full and frank disclosure, as she was obliged to disclose all monthly statements for 2019. It is necessary to restore the entire dissipated sum of $1,258,047 to the matrimonial pool, and this sum will not be credited to the Wife in assessing her direct contributions.: at [48] to [49].

9     While bearing the bulk of the family expenses over the years is a fact relevant to the assessment of indirect contributions, indirect contributions also encompass non-financial contributions made towards to the family. There is nothing to suggest that the Judge’s determination of a 50:50 ratio of indirect contributions did not take into account the efforts that the Husband has contributed.: at [51] to [52].

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.