WUI v WUJ [2024] SGHCF 25

Outcome: Orders Made.

Facts

1     The parties married in 2011 and have no children. The parties had lived together for eight and a half years, before the Wife moved out of the Husband’s family home in 2020. The divorce proceedings were commenced in 2022 and the IJ was granted in 2022. The main issue on appeal pertains to the application of the ANJ framework, and in particular, the DJ’s decision to not consider the parties’ non-financial contributions.

Court’s Decision:

2     Aside from clear-cut cases, i.e., where the marriage was for a very short duration, it would be incorrect in principle to ascribe zero weight to the indirect contributions of the parties. ANJ should apply in full such that indirect contributions should be considered.: at [43] and [58].

3     In assessing the parties’ indirect contributions and the weight to be placed, our courts sometimes use the duration from the commencement of the marriage to the date on which parties ceased to live with each other. There is no evidence that the parties contributed to each other’s life or the marriage in general after the Wife left the Husband’s parents’ house. By then, the parties were leading wholly separate lives and there was no realistic prospect of reconciliation.: at [45] to [46].

4     The act of categorising marriages as “short”, “moderate” and “long” is but a heuristic tool. Labels are intended as nothing more than convenient heuristic tools to aid the court in ascribing appropriate weight to a party’s non-financial contributions to a marriage. The court must be wary of slavishly treating the labels themselves as dispositive and of allowing the labels to take precedence over assessing what would be equitable on the specific facts of each case. Facts, and not labels, should ultimately drive the division process.: at [49] and [52].

5     As a matter of heuristics, when the courts speak of short marriages where indirect contributions are of little to no importance, it would appear that they are describing cases where the length of marriage is sufficiently de minimis such that the effective length of the marriage (i.e., the time which parties live together and/or contribute to each other’s lives) is even less than the duration of three years from s 94(1) of the Women’s Charter.: at [53] to [54].

6     The general principle to accord some weight to indirect contributions in most circumstances should apply with equal force to marriages in which children do not feature. There is, after all, intrinsic value in the institution of marriage itself, which must feature in the division process.: at [56].

7     Even in the context of a childless marriage, the parties would have ordinarily invested deeply in each other’s personal and professional growth. The law in relation to the division of matrimonial assets should therefore, where possible, reflect the holistic nature of the institution of marriage and, in the process, honour the shared journey and investment (of time, effort and sacrifice) made as a partnership.: at [57].

8     The fact that the parties did not put in much effort in building a shared life together is a factor that necessarily points towards the sensibility of ascribing lesser weight on indirect contributions. Ultimately, deciding the appropriate weight to be placed on indirect contributions is a matter of discretion based on the unique facts of each case.: at [70] to [71].

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.