WTL v WTM [2024] SGHCF 40

Outcome: Appeals Allowed in part, Dismissed in part.

Facts

1            The parties married in 2003 and an uncontested IJ was granted in 2022. Both parties appeal against the DJ’s orders on the division of matrimonial assets and maintenance for the children. In addition, the Husband appeals against the care and control orders and the Wife appeals against the spousal maintenance orders.

Court’s Decision:

Care and control

2            The need for continuity and a stable environment is only one factor relevant in the holistic review of what would be in the child’s best interest. Although granting care and control to the Wife necessitates change to the child’s living arrangement, including the need to take public transport, this does not suggest it would negatively affect the child.: at [24].

3            The Wife’s past employment which entailed long hours of work does not contradict her current intention to work from home nor preclude her ability to do so. There is also no evidence to show that the Wife will neglect the child due to her working hours after the family lives in separate households.: at [26].

4            On balance, the Wife is able, to a greater degree, nurture the child and provide a caring environment to foster his growth. It is not unreasonable for the DJ to conclude that the Wife’s caregiving and homemaking contributions, after quitting her job, surpassed the Husband’s, especially given his frequent travels.: at [24 and 29].

Division of matrimonial assets

5          The Husband’s contribution towards renovation costs should be considered as given the considerable effort and time involved, the renovations would have improved the matrimonial property.: at [34].

6            The Husband’s provision of the monthly allowance should be considered in the assessment of his indirect financial contributions. The Husband’s claim of  direct contributions towards the Wife’s bank account based on the monthly allowance is unproven and would also result in double-counting.: at [41] to [42].

7            The court will not readily interfere with the trial judge’s decision as to what percentage of the matrimonial assets is to be given to each party as it is a matter that is squarely within the trial judge’s discretion. Furthermore, the application of the broad-brush approach means that there will be a range within which an appellate court must accept the trial judge’s determination to be defensible.: at [50].

8            The power of the court to draw an adverse inference against a party who fails to comply with any provision or order for disclosure finds its genesis in rule 75(6) of the Family Justice Rules 2014. This is similarly provided for in part 9, rule 16(1)(h) of the Family Justice (General) Rules 2024, which also spells out other possible consequences of a failure to comply with an order for disclosure.: at [59].

9            When there is a sizeable difference in the estimates of discrepancy between parties (more than a million dollars in this case) and the Husband’s inability to substantiate his explanation for the discrepancy, adding a notional value of $137,743.67 to the matrimonial pool is manifestly inadequate. It is therefore more appropriate to adopt the Uplift Approach to neutralise the effects of the Husband’s failure to disclose, and to give a higher proportion of the known assets to the Wife.: at [66].

Maintenance

10          The financial obligations of parents in providing for their children may differ depending on their means and capabilities. Financial capability need not be rigidly ascertained by sole reference to income alone and can include the parties’ earning capacity (if any), property and other financial resources, assets received after the division of matrimonial assets, as well as significant liabilities and financial commitments. The quantum of reasonable maintenance to be borne in each case turns on its own facts.: at [91].

11          The power to order spousal maintenance is supplementary to the power to order division of matrimonial assets. It is not unreasonable to conclude that the Wife’s earning capacity and the substantial amount from the division of matrimonial assets would be sufficient to maintain her at the standard of living she had enjoyed during the marriage. The new realities that flow from the family living in two separate households must be considered.: at [97] to [98].

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.