WWM v WWN and another appeal [2024] SGHCF 27

Outcome: Appeals allowed in part.

Facts

1     The parties married in 1981 and interim judgment was granted on an uncontested basis in 2022. Both parties appealed against the District Judge’s (“DJ”) decision on ancillary matters. The issues on appeal are (1) whether the DJ erred in striking out the children’s affidavits, (2) whether $130,000 ought to have been returned to the matrimonial pool, (3) whether the mother-daughter joint accounts are matrimonial assets, and (4) the apportionment of indirect and direct contributions.

Court’s Decision:

2     The plain wording of rr 89(2) and 89(3) Family Justice Rules 2014 provides for a total of two affidavits of means by each party and any further affidavits beyond the two require leave of court. The affidavits of means are intended to be those of the parties themselves. Any others may be filed only with leave.: at [4].

3     Calculating the ratio of indirect contributions is an exercise of discretion. There is nothing to suggest that the DJ placed less weight upon the Wife’s various allegations and rebuttals just because she did not consider that they were corroborated by the children.: at [6].

4     Where a spouse expends a substantial amount of matrimonial money when, among other things, divorce proceedings are imminent, and the other did not consent to it, the expended sum must be returned to the matrimonial asset pool.: at [8].

5     Much of the money in each parties’ sole-name accounts, including CPF accounts, are matrimonial assets. The Wife’s gift to the parties’ daughter, to which the Husband raised no objections, would very likely consist of matrimonial money. He cannot now resile and claim that he did not know of or consent to the gift.: at [10].

6     The Wife is unable to ascertain how much of the moneys in the mother-daughter joint accounts belong to her. Moreover, she admits that the moneys were utilised for household expenses. She has thus not satisfied her burden of proof. Nonetheless, only half of the monies in the mother-daughter joint accounts should be returned to the matrimonial pool in such circumstances. The other half is deemed to belong to the other joint owner.: at [14].

7     The DJ ordered the closure of the joint bank accounts and the terms as to which party would retain the money in each of these bank accounts, but the parties’ direct contributions to the joint bank accounts needed to be considered as that affect the calculations for the overall direct contributions.: at [17].

8     The apportionment of matrimonial assets must generally be based on the contributions of the parties, not on account of their health unless exceptional circumstances are present. The DJ had considered the Husband’s medical condition and found that the Husband had not shown that he lacked the means to maintain himself.: at [24].

9     The court expressed disapproval of appeals seeking to adjust sums received by less than 1% of the original asset pool, noting that in this case, the Husband's entitlement was reduced by $27,127.70 and the Wife's by $22,240.32. Such appeals have met with judicial disapproval.: at [28].

The full text of the decision can be found here.