WQG v WQF
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (4)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
WQG v WQF [2024] SGHCF 13 was an appeal decided in the General Division of the High Court (Family Division) in District Court Appeal No 86 of 2023, with Choo Han Teck J reserving judgment on 14 February 2024 after a hearing on 19 January 2024. The parties married on 7 December 2008 and have an 11-year-old son, with interim judgment granted on 26 April 2022. The appellant wife, aged 49, earns $7,258 plus $2,000 monthly rental income, while the respondent husband, aged 50, earns $7,517 a month; both are planning managers in the same company. The appeal concerned the division of matrimonial assets and child maintenance. The wife argued that money the husband lost in a scam, $33,933 in a get-rich-quick scheme, should be added back to the matrimonial assets. The District Judge found no reason to add back the sum as there was no evidence of bad faith, and Choo Han Teck J agreed it was not a deliberate dissipation, noting the facts differed from TNL v TNK [2017] 1 SLR 609 because there was no evidence divorce proceedings were imminent when the husband was scammed.
Summary
In this District Court appeal in the General Division of the High Court (Family Division), a wife appealed against a district judge's orders on the division of matrimonial assets and child maintenance for the parties' 11-year-old son, raising issues including whether sums the husband lost in a scam and certain account balances and personal liabilities should have been treated differently in the asset pool. The court addressed the principle in TNL v TNK on returning substantial sums spent when divorce is imminent, finding no deliberate dissipation and noting the scammed sum was not substantial and predated the divorce proceedings, and considered the assessment of the child's reasonable monthly expenses. The court varied the order below accordingly and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
Were the scammed monies added back to matrimonial assets in WQG v WQF [2024] SGHCF 13?
No. In WQG v WQF [2024] SGHCF 13, Choo Han Teck J agreed with the District Judge that the $33,933 the husband lost in a get-rich-quick scam was not a deliberate dissipation of assets and need not be added back, as divorce was not imminent when it occurred.
What issues did WQG v WQF [2024] SGHCF 13 decide?
The appeal concerned the division of matrimonial assets and child maintenance for the parties' 11-year-old son, including whether $33,933 the husband lost in a scam should be returned to the asset pool under the principle in TNL v TNK [2017] 1 SLR 609.
Cases Cited (2)
Cited By (1)
Referenced in
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2024] SGHCF 13)