DBB v DBA

The husband (DBB) and the wife (DBA) married on 26 September 1990 and have three children. Interim judgment of divorce was granted on 6 October 2021, and a consent order of 1 November 2021 gave the parents joint custody and shared care and control. These grounds deal with the ancillary matters in Divorce (Transferred) No 386 of 2021, heard over two days in 2023.

The husband, who had retired from full-time work in 2016, said his income over the years paid for almost all the assets, including the matrimonial home and investment properties in Japan, Australia and Birmingham, and proposed a division of 80% to him. The wife, a part-time sales assistant, claimed large financial contributions, including $750,000 in cash towards the matrimonial home, and said she sourced the overseas properties and sacrificed her career. She argued for an equal division as in a long single-income marriage, and sought lump sum maintenance of $252,000. Each made allegations against the other about transfers between bank accounts and about conduct during the marriage. The wife appealed against all the orders in Civil Appeal No 67 of 2023.

1. Whether the marriage should be treated as single-income or dual-income for dividing the matrimonial assets.
2. What the parties' direct and indirect contributions were and how the assets should be divided.
3. What maintenance should be ordered for the children and whether the wife should receive maintenance.

The court treated the marriage as dual-income, since the evidence, including an affidavit from the eldest child that it found very objective, showed the wife had worked almost continuously, even if her earnings were small. It therefore applied the structured approach in ANJ v ANK [2015] 4 SLR 1043 rather than TNL v TNK [2017] 1 SLR 609. The husband documented his contributions precisely, while the wife gave no evidence for her claims, which the court found vague, exaggerated and not truthful. Tax records showed he earned $5,766,283 against her $173,706, and the court was satisfied she made no direct monetary contribution to buying the matrimonial home, so it gave him 95% of direct contributions. Indirect contributions were set at 60% to the husband, as both contributed to the home but he paid household and children's expenses and became a homemaker after retiring. Equal weight gave the overall split. The parties agreed the asset figures except the husband's own assets, where the court accepted his figure.

The eldest child's figure and the lump sum for the second child were agreed. For the youngest, the court took a broad-brush view of a reasonable budget, treating healthcare and assessment books as occasional items and finding the wife's tuition figure excessive. The wife was refused maintenance because she still works, the husband had been out of work for years, and she received a substantial share of assets to which she contributed little, consistent with BG v BF [2007] 3 SLR(R) 233.

The court ordered that the matrimonial home and the four overseas properties be sold by 31 March 2024, with net proceeds and interim rental income shared 77.5% to the husband and 22.5% to the wife; that the wife receive $317,164.01 from the other assets; and that the husband pay $700 a month for the eldest child, A$100,000 by 1 January 2024 and A$100,000 by 1 January 2025 for the second child's studies, and $1,500 a month for the youngest. No maintenance was ordered for the wife and each party bore her or his own costs.