VZJ v VZK [2024] SGHCF 16

Outcomes: Orders Made. 

Facts

1           The parties married in December 2012 and were divorced in October 2021. They have a son born in October 2013. The Wife and the Child left for Hong Kong in June 2016, while the Husband is based in Singapore. The three issues in the appeal are the Child’s living arrangements, the Child’s maintenance and the division of matrimonial assets.

Court’s Decision:

2          The issue of where the child of the marriage should reside is generally treated as a custodial issue. A relocation order by the court is necessary only if the parties are unable to reach consensus on the issue.: at [7] and [8].

3          As a matter of principle, the mere fact that a child may have been taken out of jurisdiction improperly is not per se a sufficient reason to order that the child be returned to that jurisdiction: the court will have regard to all the relevant circumstances of the case before determining whether it is in the interest of the child that he be returned to the original jurisdiction.: at [9].

4          Given the young age of the Child and the need for stability, it would be highly disruptive and probably traumatic for him to be separated from the Wife and uprooted from his current residence in Hong Kong.: at [10].

5          The Child is still young; and there are many decisions still to be made in the future about his education, which will shape the course of his life. It is not in the Child’s interests to deprive him of his father’s input on all education matters simply because the parties are presently unable to agree on the choice of school.: at [18].

6          Whether interest on mortgage payments should be excluded when calculating the direct contributions of the parties to the matrimonial home is ultimately a matter of discretion for the trial judge and is highly dependent on the circumstances of the case. The more crucial consideration is that the percentage contributions of both parties must be assessed on the same basis.: at [49].

7          The monthly repayments would go towards both the principal sum and the interest payable. Further, since the mortgage interest rates are not fixed over the course of the entire loan term, the Wife’s approach to exclude the interest paid would require the court to undertake a very tedious inquiry into the applicable interest rates at each juncture. Such an approach goes against the grain of the broad-brush approach.: at [51].

8          Parties must show how their projected expenditure for the child’s expenses is reasonable having regard to all the relevant circumstances, including the child’s standard of living and the parents’ financial means and resources, bearing in mind the change in circumstances occasioned by the divorce. Whether luxuries are in the best interests of the child is a matter of parenting views, and the court is not the correct forum to endorse one parenting view over another.: at [70] to [71].

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.