WJF v WJE [2023] SGHCF 17

Outcome: Appeal dismissed, save that the uplift for adverse inference is reduced from 8% to 5%.

Facts

1           Husband appealed against the DJ’s decision in drawing an adverse inference against him, in awarding an 8% uplift to Wife’s share of matrimonial assets, and in arriving at the valuation of the matrimonial assets.

Court’s Decision:

2           A company’s assets are not matrimonial assets, but a spouse’s shares of the company are. There is no need to “pierce the corporate veil” as the valuation of Husband’s shares was pegged directly to the company’s bank account balance. Adding specific sums back into the matrimonial pool does no more than reflect the true value of the shares before unjustified transactions diminish its value.: at [6].

3            In giving effect to an adverse inference, the court should be flexible in achieving a just and equitable outcome. The objective of drawing an adverse inference is to reverse the effect of any diminution of the matrimonial pool and ascertain, where possible, the true value of the material gains of the marital partnership.: at [10].

4            Although the law does not require married couples to keep records of their personal transactions during marriage, but when one of them uses a corporate bank account to manage the company expenses as well as his personal expenses, as in this case, he must be able to account clearly what the expenses were for.: at [11].

5            The purpose of an uplift is to give the prejudiced party a “higher proportion of the known assets” (UZN at [28(b)]). This refers to all known assets within the matrimonial pool, not only assets belonging to one particular class.: at [13].

6            The fact that the DJ did not detail her finding on each asset does not entitle the Husband to say that his version ought to be the correct valuation. The Notes of Evidence show that the DJ had considered the value of each asset disputed by the parties. An appellate court will not interfere with findings of fact of the lower court unless there is an error of law or omission of material facts.: at [15].

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.