VOW v VOV [2023] SGHCF 9

Outcome: Appeal dismissed, save for terms on division of matrimonial property.

Facts

1           Parties were married on 3 June 2006 and have two children from the marriage, born in 2012 and 2014. The Interim Judgment was granted on 3 September 2020. The DJ ordered that parties have joint custody of the children, with sole care and control to Husband and access to Wife. The total value of the pool of matrimonial assets was determined to be $2,010,487.47. The assets were to be divided in the ratio of 55 (Husband) : 45 (Wife). Parties were ordered to contribute to the children’s maintenance in proportion to their earnings. The Wife’s appeal concerned the issue of division of matrimonial assets and maintenance for the children.

Court’s Decision:

2            The Joint Summary involves an acceptance by the parties that it represents his or her binding or final position. The Joint Summary facilitates the fair disposal of the disputes between the parties and serves to avoid protracted litigation and unnecessary delays. The parties are put on ample notice by the words on the face of the Joint Summary that the position they take will be relied upon by the court in coming to its decision. Every effort should be made by the parties and their counsel to ensure that the Joint Summary is clear and accurate. This whole process is aimed at helping the parties save costs and time, and at making the best use of scarce judicial resources and public moneys to achieve a fair outcome in every case.: at [41] and [42].

3            Where the parties have stated their binding positions in the Joint Summary and the court has relied on those positions, there is a strong reason to hold the parties to their signed binding positions in the interests of certainty and finality. While an appellate court may allow new points to be raised on appeal in an appropriate case, even if the points represent a substantial departure from the position taken below, the party who has been granted leave to raise the new points must still address the issue of why the party should be allowed to deviate from a signed binding position taken in the Joint Summary. Departures from the Joint Summary that lead to re-litigation will otherwise be treated with reservation by the court.: at [42].

4            Section 112(2)(c) of the Women’s Charter expressly provides that it is the duty of the court to have regard to “the needs of the children … of the marriage” in exercising its powers of division. The courts have ordered the matrimonial home to be retained by the party having care and control of the children in past cases. In this case, the learned DJ made the order with a view to the Husband and children moving back to the matrimonial home after the Wife transfers her share to the Husband. This manner of division is well within the learned DJ’s discretion.: at [70].

5            Unless there are special circumstances or compelling reasons, the mere change in the value of an asset between the date of the ancillary orders and that of the hearing of the appeal per se should not be a ground to revisit the division made by the court below.The value of the matrimonial home was agreed at the AM hearing and stated in the final Joint Summary signed by both parties’ solicitors. The method of valuation was agreed upon, in a manner that accorded with well-established principles. It is a given that assets are susceptible to fluctuations in value over time. It cannot be the case that the valuations of the matrimonial properties have to be revisited on appeal just because one party asserts that the values of some of the properties have risen or fallen.: at [71] and [72].

6            In determining the maintenance that a child requires, the court will consider the needs of the child and the child’s standard of living. This will be objectively assessed and should not vary simply based on who is paying for the maintenance.: at [84].

7            As commissions and bonuses constitute part of Wife’s financial resources, they should be considered when determining her ability to contribute to the maintenance for the children. There is no principled reason why commissions and bonuses should not be treated as income.: at [87].

8            As for the Wife’s contention that the parties should first agree on specific tuition activities and that she would then contribute 33.5% for the agreed activities, the court was not persuaded that the arrangement is practical given the acrimony between the parties. There comes a point when a court-imposed requirement for consultation and agreement on smaller details in day-to-day life may lead to unnecessary friction or even deadlock. There is, in any event, nothing in the learned DJ’s order to stop the Husband and Wife from discussing the types of tuition and extracurricular activities that the children might be enrolled in as their needs and interests evolve.: at [90].

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.