VWM v VWN

Facts

VWM, the wife, appealed to the Appellate Division of the High Court in Civil Appeal No 65 of 2022 against a High Court judge's dismissal of her appeal from a District Judge's ancillary orders in her divorce from VWN, the husband. The only matter before the Appellate Division was an HDB flat at Tampines Street 61. On 13 July 2017 the couple had applied to buy it from the HDB at $467,130 and were allocated it, but the purchase was not completed because divorce proceedings began in March 2019.

The wife asked that the husband transfer his interest in the flat to her. On 31 May 2021 the District Judge refused, considering that the flat had risen in value and it would be wrong for the wife to benefit without a corresponding benefit to the husband, and ordered the flat returned to the HDB. The High Court judge dismissed her appeal, mainly because the husband would not get back his CPF deposit while the wife might gain a windfall. Leave to appeal was granted only on the flat.

Before this appeal, the wife offered to repay the husband's share of the deposit, stamp fee and conveyancing fee, all paid from his CPF account, with accrued interest. She also obtained a valuation from AUG Valuers LLP putting the flat at $467,130 as at 31 May 2021 because of the minimum occupation period. The husband's late valuation from Savills put it at $660,000, but assumed no minimum occupation period applied.

Issues

1. Whether a flat whose purchase was not completed was a matrimonial asset.
2. Whether the court could rely on the Savills valuation of the flat.
3. Whether a possible future windfall to the wife justified returning the flat to the HDB rather than transferring the husband's interest to her.

Holding

The Appellate Division allowed the wife's appeal. It ordered the husband to transfer his interest in the flat to her, and the wife to reimburse his CPF account $11,678.00 for the deposit, $4,307 for his share of the stamp fee and $156.50 for his share of the conveyancing fee, with accrued interest. If the husband did not sign the transfer papers within 8 days of written notice, the Registrar could sign for him. Each party bore its own costs, with liberty to apply and the usual consequential orders.

Reasoning

The court rejected the wife's argument that the flat was not a matrimonial asset. Both parties had acquired a right to acquire the flat during the marriage, and that right was a matrimonial asset even though the purchase was not complete; had it not been, she should not have sought relief over it.

The Savills report was made on an incorrect premise, since the flat was subject to a minimum occupation period. Only the AUG valuation could be relied on, and as it matched the purchase price there was no basis to order the wife to pay more than the husband's outlays and some interest.

The windfall concern was not relevant. The value had to be taken at 31 May 2021, when the flat could not be sold on the open market, and the court would not speculate on future prices. The husband suffered no prejudice: he had been content to return the flat to the HDB, which would give him no more than his outlays, he did not want the flat and lived in another HDB flat. By contrast, returning the flat would force the wife, who had care and control of two children, to apply afresh for a flat. The wife's offer met the High Court judge's concern about the CPF refund, though the lower courts should have explored such terms. Costs were not awarded to the wife because she made no offer at first and ran an invalid argument.

From the judgment