WSY v WSX and another appeal [2024] SGHCF 21

Outcome: Appeal Allowed in part, Dismissed in part

Facts

1          The parties were married for 13 years and have three daughters. This pair of cross-appeals arises out of orders relating to the division of the matrimonial assets and the maintenance orders made by the DJ.

Court's Decision:

2          An adverse inference is drawn when there is a failure by one party to make full and frank disclosure of their assets. On the other hand, the court may also notionally add the value of certain assets back into the matrimonial pool when a party has expended substantial sums at a time when the divorce is imminent. This is not contingent on the court finding that a party has failed to make full and frank disclosure.: at [32].

3          For an adverse inference to be drawn, it is not sufficient to rely on the conduct of a party, as an adverse inference is not intended to be punitive in nature. Instead, if the Husband had in fact been unreasonable in the conduct of his case, the appropriate course of action would have been for the court to make adverse cost orders against him.: at [72]. 

4          In the final analysis, whether the structured approach or the TNL v TNK [2017] SGCA 15 approach is applied, the court should strive to achieve an outcome that is just and equitable, having regard always to all the circumstances of the case (see s 112(2) of the Women’s Charter).: at [51].

5          While a broad-brush approach towards the quantification of maintenance is appropriate and desirable, the court should strive to state (if necessary, in broad strokes) its findings on the reasonable financial needs of the party seeking maintenance, especially on matters that are disputed between the parties. As a matter of fairness, the party contributing towards the maintenance ought to know the reasons behind the court’s order as to the applicable multiplier and multiplicand.: at [80].

6          The appropriate multiplier and multiplicand for spousal maintenance is a matter that falls within the trial judge’s discretion; and an appellate court should be slow to adjust these figures for idiosyncratic reasons.: at [96].

7           While requiring the Wife to submit receipts for big-ticket items may risk creating room for friction between the parties, this risk must be counterbalanced against considerations of fairness to the Husband. He should not be required to make payment for substantial expenses that have not actually been incurred.: at [105].