WBU v WBT [2023] SGHCF 3

Outcome: Appeal Allowed.

Facts

1           The Mother appealed against an order of the District Court which divided the child’s reasonable monthly maintenance of $3,450 in the proportion 70:30 between the Mother and the Father, respectively.

Court’s Decision:

2            The mere fact that the parties have been paying for certain items during the marriage does not automatically render such expenses reasonable expenses for the purposes of determining maintenance. Parties should show how their projected expenditure is reasonable having regard to all relevant circumstances, including the child’s standard of living, the parents’ financial means and resources, and the changed circumstances following the breakdown of the marriage.: at [9].

3            In seeking to quantify the child’s reasonable expenses, parties should avoid an overly mathematical approach where receipts are adduced to prove every single item of expenditure. While receipts are useful indicator of the child’s accustomed standard of living, they are not necessarily conclusive of what the child’s reasonable expenses are.: at [10].

4            Drawing up a budget instils accountability between parties in their continuing roles as co-parents and serves as a baseline financial framework. Further, considering the categories of expenses within a “budget framework” is consistent with the notion that deciding how best to provide for the child is a parenting matter. Disputes stemming from differences in parenting choices should only be brought to the court for resolution as a last resort.: at [11] to [12].

5            If the parties are unable to resolve the issue, the court will decide on a reasonable sum for the child’s daily needs with regard to all relevant circumstances. If any party wishes to go above and beyond, they are free to contribute additional funds or pay for these items themselves.: at [18].

6            There should not be a starting point that parents bear the financial burden of child maintenance equally. The financial obligations of parents may differ depending on their means and capabilities.: at [35].

7            Financial capacity need not be rigidly ascertained by sole reference to income alone. The court should consider the parties’ “income, earning capacity (if any), property and other financial resources”, as well as significant liabilities and financial commitments. This includes the assets received by parties after the division of their matrimonial assets.: at [38].

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.