Which judges heard the appeal in WQP v WQQ [2024] SGHC(A) 34?

The appeal in Civil Appeal No 134 of 2023 was heard by the Appellate Division of the High Court comprising Kannan Ramesh JAD, Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD and See Kee Oon JAD. Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD delivered the judgment of the court on 18 November 2024.

[2024] SGHC(A) 34 — WQP v WQQ

Q: What did the Appellate Division decide about pre-marriage assets in WQP v WQQ?

In WQP v WQQ [2024] SGHC(A) 34, the Appellate Division of the High Court held that where matrimonial assets comprise substantial pre-marriage assets commingled with post-marriage assets, that fact is relevant to division under s 112 of the Women's Charter 1961, and explained the manner in which it applies.

SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE

18 November 2024

Case summary

WQP v WQQ [2024] SGHC(A) 34

Civil Appeal No 134 of 2023

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decision of the Appellate Division (delivered by Justice Debbie Ong Siew Ling):

Outcome: The Appellate Division allowed in part an appeal against the decision of the Family Division of the High Court in respect of ancillary matters following a divorce and addressed the question of whether the fact that the pool of matrimonial assets comprises substantial pre-marriage assets commingled with post-marriage assets is relevant to the division of matrimonial assets pursuant to s 112 of the Women’s Charter 1961 (2020 Rev Ed) (the “Charter”).

Pertinent and significant points of the judgment

• A clear inference could be drawn on the facts that a substantial proportion of the matrimonial pool consisted of the appellant’s pre-marriage assets. These assets were included in the matrimonial pool as the appellant had failed to discharge his burden of showing that any of those specific assets were pre-marriage assets. The Appellate Division held that it was relevant to take these circumstances into account, and it was just and equitable to shift the average ratio to better reflect the underlying purpose of s 112 of the Charter to divide the material gains of the marriage partnership: at [70]

Background to the appeal

1 The appellant (the “Husband”) and the respondent (the “Wife”) were married for approximately 10 years and have two children (the “Children”). The Husband partially retired three years into the marriage while the Wife continued with her career. The Husband had also brought considerable wealth into the marriage consisting of at least $5.4m in cash savings, which subsequently became commingled with moneys earned during the marriage.

2 An interim judgment of divorce was granted on 29 September 2020. The Family Division of the High Cout (the “Judge”) granted care and control of the Children to the Wife, with access to the Husband. The Judge declined to grant certain handover orders sought by the Husband. With respect to the division of the matrimonial assets, the Judge assessed the parties’ direct contributions ratio to be 70.32:29.68 in favour of the Husband and the indirect contributions ratio to be 40:60 in favour of the Wife, with a resulting average ratio for division of 55.16:44.84 in favour of the Husband. She divided the matrimonial assets valued at $13,239,640.90 in the proportion of 55.16% to the Husband and 44.84% to the Wife.

3 The Husband appealed against the Judge’s decision in relation to the handover orders and the division of matrimonial assets. The Wife did not appeal but argued in her Respondent’s Case that the Judge erred in refusing to exclude shares held by her (the “J Shares”) from the pool of matrimonial assets.

The Appellate Division’s decision

The J Shares

4 The Appellate Division declined to exclude the J Shares from the matrimonial pool. While the shares were acquired by the Wife after the parties had separated, this fact did not, without more, justify the exclusion of the asset from the matrimonial pool. There was nothing on the facts in the present case that justified such an exclusion: at [20] to [21].

The facilitative access orders

5 While the Appellate Division recognised that the appellate court would be slow to intervene and played only a limited role in an appeal against decisions involving the welfare of the children, within this limited role the Appellate Division could make orders if doing so would be effective in assisting the parties to move forward and promote the welfare of the children: at [22].

6 The Appellate Division was of the view that the Husband’s exercise of his access could be assisted with facilitative handover orders, but also that there was a more fundamental need to repair the Husband’s relationship with the Children. The latter should be done with the assistance of therapeutic services. The Appellate Division therefore made the following orders:

a. The Wife was to send the Children to the Husband’s residence at the start of the Husband’s access, and the Husband was to send the Children to the Wife’s residence at the end of his access. The Husband was to bear half of the Wife’s transport costs in taking the Children to the Husband’s residence at the start of his access, as agreed by the Husband at the hearing.

b. The parties and the Children were to attend counselling to be arranged by FAM@FSC: at [24] to [26].

The parties’ indirect contributions

7 The Appellate Division was of the view that the Judge’s factual findings on the parties’ indirect contributions did not appear to be congruent with the ratio ultimately reached by her. Based on the Judge’s findings, a fair ratio for the parties’ indirect contributions would be 50:50: at [28] to [30].

Division of assets – use of the global assessment methodology or the classification methodology

8 The Appellate Division rejected the Husband’s submission for the classification methodology to be adopted. The assets which the Husband claimed to be non-quintessential matrimonial assets were acquired using funds which included moneys earned during the marriage, and therefore could not be classified as wholly non-quintessential matrimonial assets: at [56].

9 Although the Husband could not trace the specific assets in the matrimonial pool to his pre-marriage assets, it was clear on the evidence that at least a substantial portion of the matrimonial pool could be attributed to his pre-marriage assets. It followed that, to that extent, there was a substantial portion of the pool of matrimonial assets which could be regarded as non-quintessential in character. The court should have regard to these circumstances in determining the proportions of division: at [60] and [63].

10 A just and equitable division of the assets was achieved by shifting the average ratio. This better reflected the underlying purpose of s 112 of the Charter to divide the material gains of the marriage partnership.

11 This approach should minimise the incentive for parties in similar situations to submit inordinate amounts of documents and engage in a calculative exercise of tracing assets in the hope of proving that certain assets are derived from pre-marriage assets. Such conduct would protract proceedings and further aggravate the parties’ relationship, grating against the aspirations of a therapeutic justice system that endeavours to support parties in moving forward in their lives: at [70] to [72].

12 The Appellate Division therefore shifted the average ratio from 60:40 in favour of the Husband (after taking into account the conclusion on the Husband’s indirect contributions) to 65:35 in favour of the Husband: at [76].

This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s grounds of decision. 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 grounds of decision.

WQP v WQQ

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (3)

Counsel (7)

Parties (2)

Case Significance

Summary

What did the Appellate Division decide about pre-marriage assets in WQP v WQQ?

Which judges heard the appeal in WQP v WQQ [2024] SGHC(A) 34?

Cases Cited (22)

Cited By (1)

Referenced in

Legal concepts & references

Judgment