WKD v WKC

Facts

The husband (WKC) and wife (WKD), both music teachers, married in China on 22 October 1991. The husband filed for divorce in Singapore on 8 January 2020, and interim judgment was granted on 3 August 2020. Their two children are adults.

At the ancillary matters hearing on 29 November 2022, the District Judge assessed direct contributions at 59% for the husband and 41% for the wife and indirect contributions at 65% and 35%. She drew an adverse inference against the husband for failing to disclose statements of some bank accounts and gave the wife an uplift of 7%, ordering the wife to pay $89,240 to keep the matrimonial flat. She ordered no maintenance and refused to order the return of belongings the wife said the husband had taken, including violins, pianos and cash. The wife appealed in District Court Appeal No 113 of 2022, seeking a larger share, a 15% uplift, maintenance of $2,000 a month and return of her belongings. The husband appeared in person.

Issues

1. Whether the parties' financial and non-financial contributions were correctly assessed.
2. What adjustment the adverse inference against the husband justified.
3. Whether the wife should receive maintenance or an order for return of her belongings.

Holding

The court allowed the wife's appeal in part, to a limited extent. It set aside the District Judge's division orders and ordered the assets divided 43.9% to the husband and 56.1% to the wife, with $100,000 notionally added to the pool for the adverse inference. If the wife kept the flat, the husband was to pay her $276,972; if it was sold, he was to pay her $380,818 in addition to her share of the proceeds. The refusals of maintenance and of an order for return of the items were upheld, and costs were to be heard.

Reasoning

The court measured financial contributions by each party's total estimated earnings during the marriage, which the wife accepted, giving 47.78% to the husband and 52.22% to the wife. It found the indirect ratio hard to reconcile with the District Judge's own findings that the wife made sizeable contributions as caregiver and that the husband did not dispute most of her account, and reset it at 40% to the husband and 60% to the wife. Weighting the two equally and using a broad brush gave the final ratio.

The court agreed an adverse inference was warranted but found both the 7% uplift and the 15% sought excessive. Comparing the parties' earnings and the profit from selling their first flat, less conservative family expenses, with the disclosed pool, it was unlikely that large hidden assets existed. It therefore deemed $100,000 undisclosed.

With a larger share and her ability to earn from teaching music, the wife needed no maintenance. The District Judge was not wrong in finding that the existence and possession of the claimed items were unproven, and the notional $100,000 helped account for them in any event.

From the judgment