XTM v XTN

Facts

The wife, an Italian citizen, and the husband, an Australian citizen, married in Argentina in 2009 and have two sons, both of whom were later assessed as having ADHD. They moved from Australia to Singapore in January 2015. Both had well-paid careers, the wife most recently as an executive director at a bank until she was retrenched in January 2025; the husband works for a multinational technology company and is paid partly in shares. The husband left the rented family home in May 2023 at the wife's request, and interim judgment in FC/D 1150/2024 was entered on 3 April 2024 after a marriage of a little over 14 years.

The parties had agreed custody, care and control, and access; both applications to vary that consent order were dismissed. The Family Court then decided the ancillary matters. The wife, who acted in person with limited help from a solicitor, alleged that the husband had improperly withdrawn money from their joint account and concealed his share portfolio. The husband appealed in HCF/DCA 111/2025, and these are the grounds.

Issues

1. Whether withdrawals from the joint account and the accounts held with the children should be brought into the pool
2. Whether the husband's failure to disclose his shares fully justified an adverse inference
3. What division ratio was just and equitable
4. What maintenance should be paid for the children and the wife

Holding

The court ordered that matrimonial assets with a net value of S$1,060,013.34 be divided 60:40 in favour of the wife, with payment within six months. The husband was ordered to pay child maintenance of S$8 000 a month (S$4 000 per child) from 30 September 2025, to pay the school fees directly and any uninsured hospitalisation costs, and to pay the wife S$1 000 a month for two years or until she is in full-time employment, whichever is earlier.

Reasoning

Spending from the joint account was by both parties to meet high family expenses, and there was no credible suggestion the husband was trying to avoid a fair division, so nothing was added back. Accounts held with the children were left out because they were meant for the children's needs. Following ARY v ARX [2016] SGCA 13, the assets were valued at the interim judgment date.

Applying ANJ v ANK [2015] SGCA 34, direct contributions were about 38% (wife): 62% (husband). Indirect contributions were assessed at 65:35 for the wife, as she shouldered more of the children's care, especially in the years the husband travelled for work or lived apart, and was more committed to their needs. A 3.5% adjustment was made for the children's needs and the wife's uncertain prospects.

The husband unilaterally limited his disclosure under a discovery order to statements from April 2023 and did not explain his salary-sacrifice share purchases. Applying BPC v BPB and another appeal [2019] 1 SLR 608, the court drew an adverse inference and gave the wife a further 5%.

On maintenance, the court balanced the husband's means against basic needs, noting that both households must adjust. The children should stay at their international school for now, with fees met from his assets, bonuses and shares. Short-term support for the wife was fair given her retrenchment and the family's past lifestyle.

From the judgment