1 This is an appeal against the decision of the learned District Judge (“DJ”) in FC/D 580/2020. The appeal concerns the issue of division of matrimonial assets and maintenance for the two children from the marriage.

2 The appellant wife (the “Wife”) and the respondent husband (the “Husband”) were married on 3 June 2006 in Singapore. ¹ The Wife was 39 years old when the Statement of Claim for Divorce was filed in 2020; the Husband was 42 years old. ² The Husband was a French citizen and a Singapore permanent resident while the Wife was a Singapore citizen. ³ Shortly after they were married, the Wife left her previous job as an air stewardess ⁴ and the parties moved to Australia in August 2006 for the Husband’s work as a consultant. ⁵ In Australia, the Wife managed to find work at a call centre. ⁶ Slightly over a year later, in November 2007, the parties relocated back to Singapore when the Husband found work as a project manager in Singapore. ⁷ Upon the return to Singapore, the Wife did not work, and instead pursued a degree in Banking and Finance with the University of London, which the Husband asserts was funded by him. ⁸ The Wife returned to the workplace around August 2010 and has been in continuous employment since. ⁹ Both parties have done well professionally. As of 2020, the Husband held a senior position in a company as a solution architect ¹⁰ while the Wife was a sales consultant in an insurance brokerage company. ¹¹ Taking into consideration each party’s Notice of Assessment for 2019, 2020 and 2021, the Husband’s average monthly salary was $18,877 and the Wife’s average monthly salary was $15,249. ¹² The parties’ matrimonial assets were sizable, and comprised, amongst other things, a matrimonial home (a condominium apartment), bank accounts, an investment portfolio largely held in the Wife’s name, insurance policies, and Central Provident Fund (“CPF”) savings. ¹³

3 The parties have two children from the marriage, born in 2012 and 2014. ¹⁴ The children attended primary school in Singapore. ¹⁵ By July 2017, the marriage had started to break down. ¹⁶ The Husband subsequently moved out of the matrimonial home with the children in January 2020, ¹⁷ while the Wife remained in the matrimonial home. ¹⁸

5 The ancillary matters (“AM”) were heard by the learned DJ on 3 November 2021, 18 January 2022 and 11 February 2022. The learned DJ issued her judgment on 17 March 2022 and ordered that the Wife and Husband have joint custody of the children, with sole care and control to the Husband. ²³ The learned DJ also granted the Wife access to the children. ²⁴

6 The learned DJ determined the total value of the pool of matrimonial assets to be $2,010,487.47. ²⁵ Applying the approach in ANJ v ANK [2015] 4 SLR 1043 (“ANJ v ANK”), she found the ratio of the parties’ direct contributions to be 45 (Husband) : 55 (Wife) and the ratio of the parties’ indirect contributions to be 60 (Husband) : 40 (Wife), which gave an average ratio of 52.5 (Husband) : 47.5 (Wife). ²⁶ Thereafter, the learned DJ adjusted the average ratio to 55 (Husband) : 45 (Wife) in consideration of the needs of the children and the Wife’s rent-free occupation of the matrimonial home. ²⁷

7 To give effect to the final ratio, the learned DJ ordered the Wife to transfer (other than by way of sale) her share and interest in the matrimonial home to the Husband, in consideration of the Husband paying into her CPF account, as a partial refund, a sum of $57,385. The moneys in the parties’ joint bank account were to be transferred to the Husband and the account closed thereafter. The parties were to retain the assets held in their respective sole names. ²⁸

9 The Wife raises the following issues on appeal: ³¹

(a) whether there were double counting or other errors in the computation of the pool of matrimonial assets;

(b) whether the learned DJ erred in her division of the matrimonial assets in the ratio of 55 : 45 in favour of the Husband;

(c) whether the learned DJ erred in her division of the matrimonial assets in ordering the Husband to retain the matrimonial home after paying $57,385 to the Wife; and

(d) whether the amount of maintenance for the children ordered by the learned DJ to be paid by the Wife was reasonable.

Some of the assets listed above, all of which are in the Wife’s sole name, are in contention in this appeal.

11 In the Appellant’s Case, the Wife raises the issue of “[w]hether there was double counting or other errors in the assets computed by the [l]earned DJ”. ³⁴ The Wife contends that “some double counting occurred in this case”. ³⁵ She further contends that “[e]ven more egregious” is the fact that some of the equity investments that the learned DJ counted as matrimonial assets held in the Wife’s sole name were only acquired after the IJ, and so should not have been included in the learned DJ’s computation. ³⁶ In particular, the Wife contends that errors were made in respect of the ten assets tabulated in Table 1:

12 The Wife contends that:

(a) In relation to Items 1 and 2 – moneys from the Citibank Global Foreign Currency Account (Item 1) were transferred into the Citibank Step-Up Account (Item 2). ³⁷ There was therefore a double-counting error.

(b) In relation to Items 3 to 6 – moneys from the CIMB Fixed Deposit Account (Item 3) were used to fund the investments in the Interactive Brokers Account, the Tiger Brokers Account and the Tokenize Exchange Account (Items 4 to 6). ³⁸ There was therefore a double-counting error. In addition, the Tiger Brokers Account (Item 5) and the Tokenize Exchange Account (Item 6) did not exist as at the IJ date. ³⁹

(c) In relation to Items 7 and 8 – the Blockfi Account (Item 7) and the Binance Account (Item 8) both did not exist as at the IJ date. ⁴⁰

(d) In relation to Items 9 and 10 – the insurance policies were valued using the wrong date. The Tokio Marine insurance policy (Item 9) should be attributed a lower value of $1,797.64, with the valuation date being 29 September 2020. ⁴¹ The Manulife insurance policy (Item 10) should be attributed a value of $2,724, with the valuation date being 9 September 2020. ⁴²

15 The Husband contends that the values of eight out of the ten assets in Table 1 were submitted by the Wife in the third and final Joint Summary and repeated at the AM hearing. ⁵⁰ The documents that the Wife relies on in this appeal to make her case for the alleged double counting and other errors were already before the learned DJ. ⁵¹ Those figures earlier submitted by the Wife in the proceedings below were the ones that the learned DJ had placed reliance on when determining the value of those assets. ⁵² As the Wife’s former solicitors had signed the third and final Joint Summary and acknowledged that the parties would be bound by the positions stated in the Joint Summary, the Husband argues that the Wife should be held to her position. ⁵³

16 The Husband further argues that in relation to the disputed Tokenize Exchange Account, Blockfi Account and Binance Account (Items 6–8 in Table 1), the Wife has adduced insufficient evidence to prove that these assets were non-existent as at the IJ date. ⁵⁴ In relation to the disputed insurance policies (Items 9 and 10 in Table 1), the Husband argues that the learned DJ’s valuation ought to be affirmed as that valuation was based on a date that is as close to the AM date as possible. ⁵⁵

(a) the nature of the parties’ arguments below;

(b) whether the court had considered and provided any findings and reasoning in relation to the new point;

(c) whether further submissions, evidence, or findings would have been necessitated had the new points been raised below; and

(d) any prejudice that might result to the counterparty in the appeal if leave were to be granted.

20 In the present appeal, the Wife relies on Rule 828(4)(b) of the FJR 2014 in responding to the Husband’s objections to her contentions on the items in Table 1. The Wife argues that the items in Table 1 are new points that she is entitled to raise on appeal. It is, however, not stated in the Appellant’s Case that the Wife is applying for leave to introduce these points. As the Husband raises no issue on that account, the Wife presents her arguments for the new points without any objection on that basis from the Husband. As mentioned at [15]–[16] above, the Husband’s main contention in relation to the new points is that the Wife should be held to the position that she took in the third and final Joint Summary, and that in any event, the Wife is unable to discharge her burden of proving the new points.

21 I first turn to examine the evidence that the Wife relies on to advance her arguments in relation to the new points before turning to make some observations regarding a party deviating from his or her stated position in the Joint Summary which the court relied on in making the AM orders.

22 For a start, I note that all the ten disputed assets in Table 1 were included in the third and final Joint Summary submitted for the AM hearing as part of the pool of matrimonial assets for division. ⁵⁶ In addition, both the Husband’s solicitors and the Wife’s former solicitors had signed on the Joint Summary immediately below the lines which state, “The [Plaintiff/Defendant] accepts the Joint Summary to be [his/her] binding position.” ⁵⁷ On the same page in the Joint Summary, there is text which further reads:

The parties understand that the Court will rely on the parties’ respective positions in this Joint Summary when determining the ancillary matters. Where this Joint Summary discloses material facts or questions of law which are agreed between the parties, the Court may make such orders on the agreed facts or questions of law.

23 Furthermore, in the present case, the learned DJ had relied on both the Joint Summary and counsel’s submissions in coming to her decision at the AM hearings, as follows: ⁵⁸

(a) In relation to Items 1 and 2 in Table 1 (ie. the cash in the Citibank Global Foreign Currency Account and the Citibank Step-Up Account), the parties canvassed the issue of whether the moneys in the account in Item 1 (Citibank Global Foreign Currency Account) were transferred into the account in Item 2 (Citibank Step-Up Account), and both the Husband’s counsel and the Wife’s former counsel agreed at the AM hearing before the learned DJ that the balance in Item 1 was $0. ⁵⁹ As noted in Table 1 above, the learned DJ attributed a value of $7,918.33 to Item 1 and $30,955.76 to Item 2.

(b) In relation to Item 3 (CIMB Fixed Deposit Account), the Wife asserted in the third and final Joint Summary that it should have a $0 value, while the Husband asserted that it should have a value of $50,927.53. ⁶⁰ However, at the AM hearing, when the Wife’s former counsel was queried on the Wife’s position on this account, he stated that he “do[es] not know if it should go into the pool or should form part of the investment asset”. ⁶¹ As noted in Table 1 above, the learned DJ attributed a value of $50,927.53 to Item 3.

(c) In relation to Item 4 (Interactive Brokers Account), the Wife gave two values for this account in the third and final Joint Summary – a value of $9,982.80 with valuation date of 31 December 2020 and a $0 value with valuation date of October 2021. ⁶² The Husband in the third and final Joint Summary asserted that the account had a value of $9,982.80. ⁶³ At the AM hearing, the Wife’s former counsel was queried about the Wife’s position on this asset, and he was unable to produce documentary evidence to justify the Wife’s attribution of a $0 value to this account. ⁶⁴ As noted in Table 1 above, the learned DJ attributed a value of $9,982.80 to Item 4.

(d) In relation to Item 5 (Tiger Brokers Account), the Husband in the third and final Joint Summary gave this account a value of $85,172.99 (in SGD), as converted from the US$63,194.10 in the account. ⁶⁵ The Wife in the third and final Joint Summary asserted that this account had a value of $63,194.10 (in SGD) as of October 2021, but the Husband pointed out that the Wife’s former counsel had inadvertently stated the currency to be SGD when it was USD. ⁶⁶ As noted in Table 1 above, the learned DJ attributed a value of $85,172.99 (in SGD) to Item 5.

(e) In relation to Item 6 (Tokenize Exchange Account), both the Husband and Wife attributed a value of $12,168.90 to this account in the third and final Joint Summary. ⁶⁷ As noted in Table 1 above, the learned DJ attributed a value of $12,168.90 to Item 6.

(f) In relation to Item 7 (Blockfi Account), the Husband in the third and final Joint Summary gave this account a value of $69,594.60 (in SGD), as converted from the US$51,635.71 in this account. ⁶⁸ The Wife asserted that this account had a value of $51,635.71 (in SGD), but the Husband pointed out that the Wife’s former counsel had inadvertently stated the currency to be SGD when it was USD. ⁶⁹ As noted in Table 1 above, the learned DJ attributed a value of $69,594.60 (in SGD) to Item 7.

(g) In relation to Item 8 (Binance Account), the Husband in the third and final Joint Summary gave this account a value of $8,342.85. ⁷⁰ The Wife in the third and final Joint Summary gave two different values to this account – a value of $8,343.99 as of 17 May 2021, and a value of $1.14 as of October 2021. ⁷¹ At the AM hearing, the Wife’s former counsel conceded that $8,343.99 was the figure attributable to this account based on the documents before the court. ⁷² As noted in Table 1 above, the learned DJ attributed a value of $8,343.99 to Item 8.

(h) In relation to Items 9 and 10 (the Tokio Marine and Manulife insurance policies), the Husband and the Wife attributed the same values to these assets ($2,952.61 and $5350.69 for the two policies respectively, with a minor typographical error in the Wife’s figure) in the third and final Joint Summary. ⁷³ As noted in Table 1 above, the learned DJ attributed a value of $2,952.61 and $5,350.69 to Items 9 and 10 respectively.

25 At the hearing before me on 8 December 2022, both the Wife and the Husband made various concessions in respect of the assets in Table 1.

(a) The Husband agreed with the Wife that: ⁷⁵

(i) Item 1 should be excluded from the pool of matrimonial assets, while Item 2 should remain, as there was double-counting, since the moneys in the account in Item 1 were transferred to the account in Item 2.

(ii) Items 4 and 5 should be excluded from the pool of matrimonial assets, while Item 3 should remain. In relation to Items 3 and 4, there was double-counting, since a portion of the moneys in the account in Item 3 was used to purchase the investment in Item 4.

(b) The Wife withdrew her appeal in respect of Items 9 and 10, as she had made an error in the identification of the relevant date for the valuation of the assets. ⁷⁶ I note that the Wife’s concession was rightly made, as the correct method for valuing insurance policies is to take the surrender value of the insurance policies as at the date of the ancillary matters hearing, or any other date agreed by the parties (UTS v UTT [2019] SGHCF 8 at [19]).

26 The court will step in to correct computational errors in appropriate instances, particularly where both parties are agreed that such errors exist (TOT v TOU and another appeal and another matter [2021] SGHC(A) 9 at [3]). Accordingly, I order Items 1, 4 and 5 to be excluded from the pool of matrimonial assets as agreed by the parties, and Items 2, 3, 9 and 10 are to stand as ordered by the learned DJ.

27 I turn to deal with Items 6, 7 and 8, which remain disputed.

28 I first examine the evidence that the Wife relies on before turning to make some observations regarding a party deviating from the position in the Joint Summary.

29 For Item 6, the Wife’s Tokenize Exchange Account, the Wife asserts on appeal that: (a) the account did not exist as at the IJ date; and (b) there was double counting in that moneys from the CIMB Fixed Deposit Account (Item 3 in Table 1) were used to fund the Tokenize Exchange Account. ⁷⁷

30 In relation to the contention that the Tokenize Exchange Account was created after the IJ date, the only piece of evidence the Wife refers to is an e-mail from Tokenize dated 3 December 2020 which states: ⁷⁸

…

Your identity verification is successful. Your membership has been updated to Normal.

Deposit your funds to buy cryptocurrencies. Here is a guide.

…

[emphasis in the original]

31 The e-mail only shows that the membership of the account holder had been updated to “Normal”. That appears to suggest that the membership existed before the date of the e-mail and was updated on the date of the e-mail. It is, however, unclear what the status of the account was before the “update” and what it means to have one’s membership updated to “Normal”. More specifically, there is no indication that the account did not exist as at the date of the IJ, as alleged by the Wife. There is also no evidence on the circumstances under which such an email would be sent by Tokenize Exchange and what it means insofar as the status of the membership is concerned.

32 In relation to the contention that the Tokenize Exchange Account was funded using moneys from the CIMB Fixed Deposit Account (Item 3 in Table 1), the Wife asserts that the following transactions took place: ⁷⁹

(a) The fixed deposit in CIMB Fixed Deposit Account amounting to $50,927.53 was redeemed on 2 October 2020.

(b) The $50,927.53 was transferred to a CIMB FastSaver Account, then to a CIMB StarSaver Account, and then to a Citibank Step-Up Account.

(c) On 16 November 2020, $10,000 was transferred from the Citibank Step-Up Account to the Wife’s DBS MyAccount.

(d) From the DBS MyAccount,

(i) $5,000 was transferred into the Tokenize Exchange Account on 13 December 2020; and

(ii) $5,000 was transferred into the Tokenize Exchange Account on 22 December 2020.

33 After considering the documents presented by the Wife, I find that the Wife did not adduce sufficient evidence necessary to support her assertion that a total of $10,000, traceable from the CIMB Fixed Deposit Account, was transferred into the Tokenize Exchange Account. The Wife has produced a bank statement dated 31 December 2020 for her DBS MyAccount, which shows a $5,000 withdrawal on 13 December 2020 and a $5,000 withdrawal on 22 December 2020 for “Investment & Securities”, ⁸⁰ and has relied on that bank statement as proof of the source of the funds in her Tokenize Exchange Account. There is, however, no document from DBS to show that the funds were transferred to the Tokenize Exchange Account. Given the Wife’s somewhat prolific investment activities, it is unclear whether the moneys from the DBS MyAccount withdrawn for “Investment & Securities” had been used to fund other investments and buy other securities, or the ones in the Tokenize Exchange Account. I am therefore unable to conclude, from the evidence available, that the Wife's Tokenize Exchange Account was funded using moneys from the CIMB Fixed Deposit Account (Item 3 in Table 1).

34 For Item 7, the Wife’s Blockfi Account, the Wife refers to her Blockfi Account statement for January 2021 ⁸¹ and what appears to be transaction records. ⁸² According to the Wife, a comparison of the sums in the account statement against those in the transaction records, as well as reference to the transaction dates in the transaction records, gives rise to an inference that the transactions started only shortly before January 2021, and therefore the account was opened after the IJ date, which was 3 September 2020.

35 I find the evidence to be similarly lacking. The transaction records and statement from Blockfi show that there were transactions in January 2021. Nowhere in the Blockfi Account statement for January 2021 does it indicate that the Blockfi Account was opened only in January 2021. Similarly, while the transaction records may indicate that there were transactions involving the Blockfi Account in January 2021, the transaction records do not state that there were no transactions involving the Blockfi Account before January 2021. It is incumbent on the Wife to produce proper evidence, such as a confirmation or statement to prove what seems to be a straightforward matter of when the Blockfi Account was opened. The Wife did not produce such evidence.

36 For Item 8, the Wife’s Binance Account, the Wife refers to an e-mail dated 20 January 2021 from Binance which states: ⁸³

…

Your Advanced Verification has been approved. Your Binance account can now:

Withdraw cryptocurrency up to a 100 BTC value per day. Buy crypto instantly …

To further increase these account limits, you can perform Address Verification by …

The Wife also points to what appears to be records of her transactions with Binance. ⁸⁴

37 I also view these documents as insufficient evidence to prove that the Binance Account did not exist as at the date of the IJ and was not a matrimonial asset. The e-mail from Binance does not indicate that the Binance account did not exist as at the IJ date. All the e-mail shows is that the account holder’s “Advanced Verification” had been approved and that the Binance account had the capabilities listed. In fact, the existence of an “Advanced” verification suggests that there may well be another verification status that had already existed before. As for the transaction records, while they may indicate that there were transactions involving the Binance account in March and April 2021, the transaction records do not state that there were no transactions involving the Binance Account before then.

38 Having examined the available evidence, I find no reason to disturb the learned DJ’s decision in holding that the accounts in Items 6, 7 and 8 in Table 1 were matrimonial assets, with the values attributed to them by the learned DJ.

39 My evaluation of the evidence in the section above is sufficient for disposing the appeal in respect of the disputed assets, but it is apposite that I make some observations here on the use of the Joint Summary in the determination of ancillary matters.

40 The arguments of the Wife in relation to the Tokenize Exchange Account and Blockfi Account (Items 6 and 7 in Table 1) are not entirely “new points” as such. In her affidavit filed on 9 June 2021 in response to an order for discovery, the Wife stated that these accounts were opened in December 2020. ⁸⁵ The Wife, however, took another position in the third and final Joint Summary that was submitted to the court ⁸⁶ and at the AM hearing before the learned DJ. ⁸⁷ At the AM hearing, the court explicitly asked the Wife’s former counsel to articulate the Wife’s position on the Tokenize Exchange Account and Blockfi Account, and said counsel did not dispute that the Tokenize Exchange Account and Blockfi Account should be included in the pool of matrimonial assets; instead, he explicitly confirmed that they should be valued at $12,168.90 and $69,594.60 respectively. ⁸⁸ In relation to the Binance Account (Item 8 in Table 1), from the third and final Joint Summary ⁸⁹ and the submissions of the Wife’s former counsel at the AM hearing, ⁹⁰ the dispute then was over the quantification of the value of the account, instead of whether the account existed as of the IJ date.

41 It has been noted above, at [22], that the parties acknowledge the Joint Summary to set out their “binding position”. The statement, “[t]he [Plaintiff/Defendant] accepts the Joint Summary to be [his/her] binding position”, was inserted into the Joint Summary form through Amendment No. 2 of 2020 to the Family Justice Courts Practice Directions, which amended the form prescribed by Amendment No. 1 of 2016. The fact that the Joint Summary involves an acceptance by the parties that it represents his or her binding or final position has been acknowledged by the General Division of the High Court (see, for example, VPH v VPI [2021] SGHCF 22 at [14]; WAS v WAT [2022] SGHCF 7 at [3]).

44 To summarise, the learned DJ’s decision in respect of Items 1 to 10 remains undisturbed, save that Items 1, 4 and 5 are to be taken as personal assets of the Wife and excluded from the pool of matrimonial assets by consent of the parties. The total value of Items 1, 4 and 5, as tabulated in Table 1 and as determined by the learned DJ, ⁹¹ is $7,918.33 + $9,982.80 + $85,172.99 = $103,074.12. The learned DJ had determined the value of the Wife’s assets that constituted part of the pool of matrimonial assets to be $847,190.90. After deduction of the values of Items 1, 4 and 5, the correct sum for the Wife’s assets that constitute part of the matrimonial pool is $744,116.78.