7. Section 112 (1) of the Women’s Charter 1961 (2020 Rev. Ed.) (Charter) provides that a court has the power subsequent to the grant of a judgment of divorce to order the division between parties of any matrimonial asset in such proportions as the court thinks just and equitable. Section 112 (2) provides a list of non-exhaustive factors to assist a court in determining what would be just and equitable.

8. Section 112 (10) provides the definition of a matrimonial asset. In USB v USA and another appeal ⁵ the court expressed that “…..when a marriage is dissolved, in general all the parties’ assets will be treated as matrimonial assets unless a party is able to prove that any particular asset was either not acquired during the marriage or was acquired through a gift or inheritance and is therefore not a matrimonial asset. The party who asserts that an asset is not a matrimonial asset or that only a part of its value should be included in the pool bears the burden of proving this on the balance of probabilities…” ⁶

9. It is trite law that substantial sums expended when divorce is imminent must be returned to the pool. ⁷ The plaintiff called for the court to make a finding that S$80 828.34 was improperly withdrawn by her husband from their joint DBS account without her knowledge and that this sum be returned by the husband. ⁸ The husband made a similar allegation against his wife and said that he stopped contributing a monthly sum of S$12 500 to prevent her from using the monies on expenses they did not agree on. ⁹ I did not place the sum indicated by the wife to have been spent by the husband (nor suggested by the husband to be unreasonable expenses of the wife) back into the pool for division. From the evidence, both parties contributed to this account with the understanding that the monies were to be utilised for various expenses of the family. Even though they earned healthy incomes, their expenses were disproportionately high and the substantial spending from this account was by both parties and largely to meet those expenses which snowballed once parties started to live separately and divorce proceedings commenced. The wife alleged that the husband did not explain every withdrawal and appeared to be “cherry-picking” ¹⁰ items he could explain. I did not agree. It is impossible for every expense to be accounted for in a marriage. In this case, a lot of what appears to be large payments relate to credit card bills which in turn relate to unmanaged family expenses and expensive school fees. The husband was able to show that he met many of the family expenses from the joint account and there was no credible suggestion that he was removing or utilising it to avoid a fair division.

10. The husband was of the view that the accounts held in the joint names of the children and the wife formed part of the wife’s assets. ¹¹ I did not place it into the pool of assets to be divided, not on account of it being a modest collective sum but largely because the intention behind the setting up of these accounts was to provide the children with a resource to meet expenses, if needed. In any event, the husband eventually took the position that these need not be brought into the pool for division. ¹²

11. The parties presented 2 different computations of the value of the matrimonial assets, arising significantly from the difference in the date each party proposed as the relevant date for the determination of asset value. In ARY v ARX ¹³ the court articulated that the default position to determine the pool of matrimonial assets is the date the interim judgment was issued, in this case, 3 April 2024. The court opined that “unless the particular circumstances of justice of the case warrant it, the starting point or default position should be the date that interim judgment is granted”. ¹⁴ In the case before me, the husband left the home in May 2023 but had a continuous relationship with the family after this and before the divorce. He contributed financially into the joint account for the children’s expenses after moving out and once that ceased, their school fees and other expenses. Parties even continued to travel as a family. It would be prudent to apply the date of IJ as the effective date of determination of the matrimonial assets. I accepted to a large extent the computation of the husband as provided at Annex C of his final submissions.

12. In this case, there was no matrimonial home which was purchased by the parties as they had lived together in rented premises throughout their marriage, and separately in rented premises since May 2023. There was no dispute as to the relevance of any pre-marital asset or inheritance which the husband had received. Having determined the issues relating to the disputed assets and the date at which the assets ought to be computed, the value of assets and liabilities closest to the date of IJ is provided at Table 1. While I agree that the values of unvested shares provided by the husband is subject to variables such as the performance of the company and that it may therefore only represent ballpark values on vesting, any loss of value would be borne by both, as would any gain.

13. As this was a marriage of 14 years during which time the parties were in full time employment save for brief periods, the structured approach advanced by the Court in ANJ v ANK ¹⁹ was applied. First, a ratio that represents each party’s direct contributions relative to the other party was ascribed, having regard to the amount of financial contribution each party had made towards the acquisition and improvement of the matrimonial assets. Then, their indirect contributions relative to each other was ascribed a ratio before arriving at an average ratio. ²⁰

14.  Having found that the direct contributions of the parties were approximately in the proportion 38% (wife): 62% (husband), ²¹ I turned to their indirect contributions. The husband was of the view that the indirect contributions of the parties were equal. I was of the view that a fairer division ought to be 65:35 in favour of the wife.

15. Even as the parties managed their work and household chores without helpers till the birth of their second child in 2015, the wife appears in my view to be the one who was more consistent in providing for the family and whose contribution was of a nature that connoted a larger responsibility when it came to the care of the children. They were both good providers of financial support. The wife’s income relative to the husband’s was larger only from 2021 but it allowed for greater contribution to the family expenses from that time. Her lower pay before 2021 (relative to her husband’s) would also need to be understood in the context of the manner in which the husband dealt with his salary. Deductions from his salary was made to pay for the OCBC SRS account as well as the Superannuation Fund in Australia. ²² This lowered his available salary for family expenses. Notwithstanding, I am of the view that this was less of a concern given that it was accounted for in the pool of assets. The deductions to his salary for the purchase of shares which amounted to almost S$2 000 a month however was of greater relevance as it reduced available income to meet family expenses. The wife’s salary on the other hand was fully applied to meet the family expenses.

16. Apart from the time the wife was on maternity leave for 4 months and what appears to be a 2-month paternity leave the husband was on after the birth of their first son in 2010, the husband was away substantially every month for work related matters when he was working for Company X in Australia. This was between 2011 and the end of 2014. During these years, the care of the first son would have fallen on the wife, assisted for a brief time by her mother. When the couple arrived in Singapore in 2015 the wife did not work during her pregnancy. During this time, the husband was the sole provider and she would have been with her older child, assisted this time by a domestic helper. However, in 2020 the husband stopped work for a period of about a year which placed the economic responsibility on the wife. The husband claimed that he wanted to homeschool the children during the Covid-19 pandemic which they feared would impact the health of their second son in particular. The wife disagreed with the husband’s reason for ceasing employment and attributed it to the stress that he felt during that time. Regardless of the reason, the family lost income during this period in addition to share entitlements/benefits. The relationship came under intense pressure from 2021 and the husband chose to travel to Australia to be with his brothers. In May 2023 he was asked to leave the home making his contributions to daily care of the children rather more limited for the year prior to April 2024. In essence, approximately 4 of their 14-year marriage saw the husband either travelling for significant periods each month for work or living separately from the children (on account of being told to do so), thus limiting his caregiving. I could not ignore the fact that the wife must have shouldered the responsibility more, at least for those 4 years. As for the remaining years, clearly it can be said, as it can for almost every marriage, that contributions were made by both parents to the care of their children. The husband spoke of having shared equally in the discharge of responsibilities towards the children. The wife did not agree and suggested that he was in fact an absent father. The husband understandably rejected such a position and shared examples of his contribution. He spoke of feeding and putting his first son to sleep after night feeds, taking the children on “scooter rides”, bringing them to parties and to the doctor when his wife could not. These amongst others, were contributions that were taken into consideration. From the affidavits however, it appears that the wife was the one who largely liaised with school, tutors and doctors. The husband stepped in, without any hesitation, but usually when she could not. The husband also appears to prefer the children deciding what was good for them. An example would be drum lessons which the second son had taken. This was to assist in the management of ADHD. It was stopped when the son indicated a lack of interest. ²³ Similarly when the child indicated that he was bored with therapy sessions with a psychologist, the husband was of the view that the child need not attend. ²⁴ The wife enrolled the child for a sleep study to better address his challenges which the husband did not agree with. Additionally, and more recently, he appears to be more comfortable contributing to the needs of the children if such needs or events occurred during his time with the children. When an appointment the wife made with a Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) specialist for the second child did not fall on his time with the children, he was of the view that the wife should then take him. ²⁵ While the husband need not take the child each time he is asked to, the position he takes on when he has an obligation to do so, i.e., when he has the child with him, paints a larger picture of compartmentalising duties and how the onus to meet the needs of the children continuously resides with the mother. Insofar as his explanation on why he agreed to cancelling classes the children were not interested in, this could be viewed simply as differing parenting styles. The wife’s view that the children should take on or commit to programmes that would help them manage their ADHD in particular and her commitment to following through with them shows a parent that was willing to do more to address these issues. It would have been easier to allow the children to drop activities they found uninteresting. It may not however be in their best interest.

17. The husband spoke rather more broadly on the money he had provided to meet the children’s expenses. ²⁶ While this is certainly important, both seem to have contributed well with the last 4 years seeing a larger contribution by the wife. The larger disparity between the parties appear to be in their respective contributions to the care and well-being of the children. I was of the view that the wife catered towards this more substantially and greater weight for her indirect contributions was accordingly given. Where both parents work, the amount of time available for their children may not differ materially but the nature of care may well be divergent. Other forms of indirect contribution such as that relating to the wife having assisted the husband to secure work at Company X or planning the logistics of the family’s move to Singapore, were not taken into account in the decision to award her a higher percentage for her indirect contributions. There was little by way of credible evidence to suggest that either did more than the other in these areas.

18.  Guided by the court in ANJ, I looked at 3 broad categories relating to the length of marriage, the size of the assets and its constituents and the nature of the indirect contributions of the parties ²⁷ in addition to several other relevant factors provided under s 112(2) of the Charter in making adjustments to the average ratio and arriving at an appropriate division.

19.  Apart from the relevant factors stated in preceding paragraphs, I considered the needs of the children further.

20. The wife suspected that both boys may have Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD). Assessments indicate that they have the disorder. The second son’s condition appears to be one which requires more attention. The road ahead for the wife who will be caring for their day-to-day needs will require a greater and more involved presence and closer care and engagement with the school and support providers. Additionally, the children were until the time they had to move into their current rented premises, used to a lifestyle more luxurious on account of the fact that both parents were earning healthy incomes. With the loss of employment on the wife’s part, more than half of the family income is no longer available, bringing with it substantial uncertainty. It is very likely as the wife herself had acknowledged, that their continued stay in Singapore is contingent on her finding suitable work. The wife is 50 years of age and regardless of her skills, her ability to obtain employment at the salary level the family was used to, is unlikely. Providing a buffer to the wife who has the care and control of the children was felt to be needed hence an adjustment was made. Given the relatively modest net value of assets, a 3.5% adjustment was made (which translates to a real value of about $37 000).

21. The wife asserted that “No one at [Company X] works for the cash they are paid.” ²⁸ As part of his company’s compensation structure, employees at Company X, earn shares as restricted stock units (RSU). 25% of the shares could be encashed after 1 year of being granted and 75% was similarly cashable every quarter or bi-annually over 4 years after it is granted. Shares were also granted through an employee salary sacrifice scheme (ESPP) and other equity-based instruments. It was the wife’s position that the husband dissipated and concealed his share portfolio and associated cash proceeds from the sale of shares.

22. While initially the husband appeared to be saying that rewards for personal work was not a matrimonial asset, submissions by his counsel accepted that vested shares and shares granted but unvested as at the time of the IJ should be retained in the matrimonial pool of assets to be divided. With regards to the vested shares, he provided statements from an E-trade Morgan Stanley Account, the account through which shares are traded, to show its value as at April 2024 ²⁹ and highlighted also that he had given a sum of $43 000 to his wife, which he said represented half of the amount he received from the sale of vested shares. ³⁰ Dissatisfied, the wife applied for discovery. One of the orders related to the need to produce documents to state the number of shares he owns whether provided by his company or purchased between April 2022 and March 2023. The judge who heard the application also noted that apart from the shares granted as part of the remuneration package, there was a need to disclose information on the additional shares purchased through the salary sacrifice scheme for the same period. In his affidavit attempting to comply with the orders, the husband produced instead the E-Trade Morgan Stanley accounts from 2023. ³¹ He said ³² “Although the plaintiff requested for information/documents from April 2022, the disclosure sought for by the plaintiff is too extensive and onerous upon me. Further, I fail to see how the old statements would be relevant. I have therefore disclosed the information only from April 2023 onwards (i.e. the period when I moved out) and verily believe such extent disclosure (sic) is sufficient for the court to adequately determine my financial resources”. This was a position unilaterally taken despite the court order. This threw up many questions with respect to the period before he left the matrimonial home and how those shares were dealt with, including the nature of expenditure from the shares if sold. With respect to the ESPP, a sum of $1 947 is deducted from his salary every month for its purchase. Information was not forthcoming on the number of shares he had between April 2022 and March 2023, disabling any submission on the prudence of how the sale proceeds, if any, was applied. Even for the period March 2023 to April 2024, he failed to identify the ESPP in the statements exhibited in his compliance affidavit. In his 2nd affidavit for the ancillary matters, ³³ he claimed that the E-Trade Morgan Stanley Statements provides details of it while saying at the same time that he sold the shares as soon as he purchased them. ³⁴ He made no attempt to show the number of shares he held under the ESPP and how the figures aligned with his position that he utilised the proceeds for credit card loans immediately upon sale. Parties indeed “…bear a duty to approach the division process with candour, diligence and a genuine commitment to resolution”. ³⁵ An inference was made that the husband failed to fully account for the number of shares he had, in particular that which he purchased through deductions from his salary.

23. Adverse inferences should only be drawn if “there is a substratum of evidence that establishes a prima facie case against the person against whom the inference is to be drawn and that person had some particular access to the information he is said to be hiding”. ³⁶ There are 2 approaches that will allow an adverse inference arising out of non-disclosure to be effected. One would be for a court to make a finding on the estimated value of undisclosed assets and include that value in the matrimonial pool of assets to be divided. This however would be effective typically, if there is available evidence. It can however be utilised even in the absence of it as seen in BPC. The other approach would be for the court to order a higher proportion of the assets to the other party. ³⁷ The lack of candour with respect to the true extent of his shares between April 2022 and April 2024 and if they were sold, where that value was deposited and how it was applied required in my view an uplift of 5% to be ascribed to the wife’s share.

24. Looking at the facts in totality and bearing in mind the continued relevance of the broad-brush approach, the following were the ratios for direct and indirect contributions, adjustments made to the average ratio and the 5% uplift for failure on the part of the husband to disclose his share portfolio fully in compliance with orders made pursuant to the discovery application.

Table 3: Final Division of Matrimonial Assets