WXW v WXX [2024] SGHCF 24

Outcome: Orders Made

Facts

1      The parties married in 1988 and have three adult children. IJ was granted in 2022. The Wife worked full-time for the entirety of the marriage. The Husband left his full-time job in banking in 1997 and has had various undertakings since then. The main inquiries were whether the relevant loans should be deducted from the matrimonial pool and whether this case relates to a dual-income marriage or a single-income marriage.

Court’s Decision:

2     It would be manifestly unfair to the Wife for the assets in her name to be included as assets generated for the benefit of the family and for division between the parties, but for the liabilities in her name to be considered liabilities incurred for her own purposes and thus as a burden to be borne solely by her.: at [15].

3     This case relates to a long single-income marriage where the framework under TNL v TNK should apply instead of the structured approach under ANJ v ANK. Accordingly, there will be no computation of the dollar value of direct contributions made by each party to determine the parties’ contributions ratio. Instead, the net value of the pool of matrimonial assets will be tallied up and divided in a manner that gives due recognition to both the role of breadwinner and the role of homemaker, which are equally fundamental to the well-being of a marital partnership.: at [17] and [47].

4     Liabilities that have been incurred in the name of the working spouse for the benefit of the family, which may include loans to finance the acquisition of matrimonial assets, should generally be deducted from the pool. Under s 112(2)(b) of the Women’s Charter, it is the duty of the court, when ordering the division of matrimonial assets, to have regard to “any debt owing or obligation incurred or undertaken by either party for their joint benefit”.: at [17].

5     The court will not adopt a mechanistic lens when assessing parties’ day-to-day contributions. Instead, the focus is on the primary roles played by each party. The mere fact of a spouse having intermittent employment does not preclude the spouse from being the primary homemaker.: at [37] and [42].

6     The question of whether a party is a primary homemaker must be evaluated upon considering all the relevant circumstances, and not simply by focusing on an income disparity between two parties.: at [51].

7     The present case does not concern a pool of matrimonial assets that is so large, or any other unique circumstances, to justify the very significant deviation from an equal division. As with DBA v DBB, a 60:40 division would be just and equitable on the present facts.: at [60].

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.