WFE v WFF [2023] SGHC(A) 16

Outcome: In the first step of the structured approach, the crux of the exercise is in ascertaining the parties’ respective direct contributions towards acquiring the matrimonial assets. In this step, the court does not necessarily need to determine the parties’ property rights or specific beneficial ownership in the assets in order to calculate the direct contributions of the parties. What is instead important is the financial contributions that go towards an asset falling within the definition of “matrimonial asset”.

Facts

1           Parties married on 28 June 1997 and have three sons. Wife appealed against the decision of the High Court Judge pertaining to the division of matrimonial assets.

Court’s Decision:

2            The starting point is that parties’ assets are treated as matrimonial assets. A party may assert that an asset is not a matrimonial asset as it was acquired by gift or inheritance (s 112(10) of the Charter). The party making such an assertion bears the burden of proving it on a balance of probabilities.: at [19].

3            A party claiming that an asset is acquired by inheritance must adduce sufficient evidence to show the linkage between the asset acquired by inheritance and the currently owned asset; for instance, where moneys in a bank account are concerned, this would include, among other things, the details on the sources of contribution.: at [20].

4            In the first step of the structured approach, the crux of the exercise is in ascertaining the parties’ respective direct contributions towards acquiring the matrimonial assets. In this step, the court does not necessarily need to determine the parties’ property rights or specific beneficial ownership in the assets in order to calculate the direct contributions of the parties. What is instead important is the financial contributions that go towards an asset falling within the definition of “matrimonial asset”. This is a strictly evidential exercise that is done on a broad-brush basis.: at [36] to [37].

5            An intention to share gifted or inheritance assets with the other spouse and family must be distinguished from an intention to gift them to the other spouse. The latter involves the donee spouse’s intention to “divest himself or herself of all interest in the asset in favour of the other spouse”.: at [46].

6            Bearing children in itself, without more, does not automatically attribute a wife a certain extra percentage in indirect contributions. Carrying a child during pregnancy and giving birth to a child are occasions of joy and celebration, and not an opportunity to be exploited as a basis to seek an increase in the share of indirect contributions.: at [73].

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.