WBU v WBT

Facts

The Father (plaintiff) and Mother (defendant) obtained an interim judgment of divorce on 4 November 2020 in Divorce No 2059 of 2020. They have one young son. In the ancillary matters order of 24 February 2022 the District Judge found the child's reasonable expenses to be $3,450 a month, split them 70:30 between the Mother and the Father, and ordered the Father to pay $1,035 a month from 28 February 2022.

The Mother appealed in HCF/DCA 28/2022. She said the child's reasonable expenses should be $9,575, based largely on what she had actually spent on organic food, books and toys, enrichment classes, Traditional Chinese Medicine, a caregiver allowance for her mother, and housing at her sister's flat. She sought 34% from the Father on that figure, or alternatively equal sharing of $3,450. The Father, a commercial pilot who said he had suffered setbacks in the COVID-19 pandemic, argued the figures were inflated and the Mother earned far more. A separate access appeal, HCF/DCA 37/2022, was put on hold pending an access review.

Issues

1. Whether the District Judge erred in finding the child's reasonable expenses to be $3,450
2. Whether child maintenance should start from equal sharing between the parents
3. Whether the District Judge erred in apportioning maintenance 70:30 between the Mother and the Father

Holding

Debbie Ong JAD allowed the appeal in part. The child's reasonable expenses were raised to $4,000 a month and apportioned 65:35 between the Mother and the Father, so the Father was to pay $1,400 per month. On the Father's later letter, the court directed that the revised order take effect from the date of the District Judge's order.

Reasoning

The court said spending during the marriage does not by itself make an expense reasonable; parties should present a broad budget by category rather than prove every item with receipts, and choices about food, classes and lifestyle are parenting decisions courts should not micro-manage. The judge saw no reason to disturb the District Judge's figures for food, books and toys, enrichment and medical costs: the Mother's figures went beyond what a child of that age, not yet at school, reasonably needed, and her claims about his health were not backed by medical evidence. However, no sum had been allowed for accommodation. Bank records supported the Mother's account that she contributed to living at her sister's home, so on a broad-brush basis the court allowed $550 for accommodation alongside $450 for the grandmother's caregiving.

On apportionment, the court declined to treat TBC v TBD [2015] 4 SLR 59 as setting equal sharing as a starting point. Both parents share the duty to maintain, but their obligations may differ with their means, as AUA v ATZ [2016] 4 SLR 674 put it. Capacity looks at income, earning capacity, property and other resources. On the parties' tax assessments for the last four years the Father earned about 34% of their combined income, so bearing 35% was fair.

The Father's later complaint that the child was not attending the school whose fees were counted was a new factual point that should have been raised at the appeal; the court urged the parents to use the budget flexibly and treat litigation as a last resort.

From the judgment