Official website links end with .gov.sg
A Singapore Government Agency Website
Secure websites use HTTPS
BPC v BPB and another appeal [2019] SGCA 3
Outcome: Appeal allowed in part
3 Generally, the court should rely on the date of interim judgment as the starting point in determining the pool of matrimonial assets. Cogent reasons are required to depart from this starting point: at [26].
4 A party’s continuing care for the children after the grant of interim judgment is not, in and of itself, sufficient basis for the court to adopt the date of the ancillary matters hearing as the operative date to determine the pool of matrimonial assets instead. Contributions made by a party after the date of interim judgment is not a factor justifying the inclusion of assets acquired after interim judgment in the pool of matrimonial assets: at [29] to [31].
5 While the court can adjust the operative date for determining the pool of matrimonial assets to give effect to adverse inference drawn against a party, it is inappropriate to do so where that party had accumulated a significant amount of assets in the period between the grant of interim judgment and the commencement of ancillary proceedings. Doing so would confer upon the other party a windfall he or she did not contribute towards: at [37] and [40].
6 The court should generally adopt the date of the ancillary matters hearing as the starting point in determining the value of the matrimonial assets, and there should be cogent reasons for departing from this starting point. The courts have been wary of adopting a date that is not tied to any legally significant event during the divorce proceedings: at [43] and [55].
7 Once an asset falls within the pool of matrimonial assets, s 112(10) of the Women’s Charter does not distinguish between jointly and separately owned property – they are to be similarly valued at the date of the ancillary matters hearing, and accordingly subject to movements in the property market pending the ancillary matters hearing which should be borne by both parties: at [49] and [52].
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.
Facts
1 Both parties appealed against the High Court Judge’s decision on the division of matrimonial assets. The Wife challenged the weightage assigned to the direct and indirect contributions, and the issues raised by the Husband included the operative dates for determining the pool of matrimonial assets and for the valuation of the matrimonial assets.Court’s Decision:
2 The Court of Appeal dismissed the Wife’s appeal and allowed the part of the Husband’s appeal relating to the operative date for determining the pool of matrimonial assets. As a result, the date of interim judgment was adopted to determine the pool of matrimonial assets instead of the date of the ancillary matters hearing, and the value of the pool of matrimonial assets was accordingly reduced.3 Generally, the court should rely on the date of interim judgment as the starting point in determining the pool of matrimonial assets. Cogent reasons are required to depart from this starting point: at [26].
4 A party’s continuing care for the children after the grant of interim judgment is not, in and of itself, sufficient basis for the court to adopt the date of the ancillary matters hearing as the operative date to determine the pool of matrimonial assets instead. Contributions made by a party after the date of interim judgment is not a factor justifying the inclusion of assets acquired after interim judgment in the pool of matrimonial assets: at [29] to [31].
5 While the court can adjust the operative date for determining the pool of matrimonial assets to give effect to adverse inference drawn against a party, it is inappropriate to do so where that party had accumulated a significant amount of assets in the period between the grant of interim judgment and the commencement of ancillary proceedings. Doing so would confer upon the other party a windfall he or she did not contribute towards: at [37] and [40].
6 The court should generally adopt the date of the ancillary matters hearing as the starting point in determining the value of the matrimonial assets, and there should be cogent reasons for departing from this starting point. The courts have been wary of adopting a date that is not tied to any legally significant event during the divorce proceedings: at [43] and [55].
7 Once an asset falls within the pool of matrimonial assets, s 112(10) of the Women’s Charter does not distinguish between jointly and separately owned property – they are to be similarly valued at the date of the ancillary matters hearing, and accordingly subject to movements in the property market pending the ancillary matters hearing which should be borne by both parties: at [49] and [52].
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.
2022/01/10
Share this page:
