BOR v BOS [2018] SGCA 78

Outcome: Both appeals allowed in part, dismissed in part.

Facts

1            This was a single income marriage of about 11 years and four months. Parties had two sons from the marriage who resided with the Wife in Singapore when Husband relocated to China for work in January 2008. Both parties appealed against the Judge’s orders in relation to the division of matrimonial assets.

Court’s Decision:

2            The court should not draw an adverse inference unless (a) there is a substratum of evidence which establishes a prima facie case against the person against whom the inference is to be drawn; and (b) that person has some particular access to the information he is said to be concealing or withholding.: at [75].

3            Not every unexplained withdrawal or decrease in value in a bank account over time will be sufficient to raise a prima facie case of dissipation. Withdrawals of money which may legitimately be explained as personal expenditures or as genuine expenditures on business or investments should generally be disregarded.: at [76].

4            In TNL v TNK [2017] SGCA 15, this court observed that the trend in long single-income marriages had tended towards an equal division of matrimonial assets, but different considerations may attach to short single-income marriages. TNL v TNK itself involved a marriage of some 35-years. The cases which the court referred to as relevant precedents involved marriages of between 26 to 30 years. The marriage in the present case lasted about 11 and a half years, much shorter than the examples which the court discussed in TNL v TNK. Different considerations apply to such mid-length marriages.: at [111] to [112].

5            The trend in “moderately lengthy marriages” was towards awarding the homemaker wife about 35% to 40% of the matrimonial assets. What was meant by “moderately lengthy” was a period in the range of around 15–18 years. For marriages of shorter duration (around 10–15 years), the trend appears to be towards awarding the non-income earning party about 25% to 35% of the matrimonial pool.: at [113].

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.