VWM v VWN [2023] SGHCA 4

Outcome: Appeal Allowed.

Facts

1           Parties had applied to purchase a flat from the HDB and had not taken possession of the flat or made full payment pending the outcome of the divorce proceedings. Wife's appeal against the orders of the District Judge (“DJ”), including his order that parties were to return the flat to the HDB, was dismissed. The Wife applied to the Appellate Division for leave to appeal against this decision, and was granted leave only in respect of the flat.

Court’s Decision:

2            The wife argued that the flat was not a matrimonial asset because the purchase had not been completed by 31 May 2021 (the date of the DJ’s orders and the date to be used for valuing the flat) and no loan had been drawn. However, if the flat was not a matrimonial asset, then the wife should not have sought relief in respect of the flat in divorce proceedings. In any event, both parties had acquired a right to acquire the flat during the marriage and that is a matrimonial asset even though the purchase had not been completed yet.: at [5].

3            The concern that wife would potentially gain a windfall if the flat was transferred to her is irrelevant as the windfall is not based on the relevant date of 31 May 2021 (the date to be used for the purpose of valuing the flat) but the future. It takes into account a potential future increase in the price of the flat when it is sold after the MOP has elapsed. However, the flat is not yet an asset that could be sold in the open market as the MOP would still apply. There is therefore no windfall to speak of as of 31 May 2021 and it is not open to this court to speculate what the potential price of the flat would be if it is sold in the future.: at [14].

4            There is no real prejudice to husband because he had previously been willing and is still willing for the flat to be returned to the HDB. If this is done, he will receive no more than the refund amounts proposed by wife in buying over his interest.: at [16].

5            There was no good reason to make Wife go through the entire process of applying for HDB flat afresh and waiting to be allocated one at a location which may be different from the present one. The needs of the children is a factor that the court takes into consideration when dividing parties’ matrimonial assets. The wife has care and control of the two children of the marriage and it would be in their interest to have a permanent roof over their heads.: at [18].

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.