WVZ v WVY

WVZ (the Husband) and WVY (the Wife) married in China on 30 June 2005 and have a son and a daughter, both Singapore citizens. The Husband, a Singapore citizen since 2010, was a general manager in the automotive industry until 2022 and is now unemployed; the Wife, a Chinese citizen and permanent resident, works as an office administrator. The Wife filed for divorce on 7 August 2019 and interim judgment was granted on 15 June 2020.

By an order dated 25 January 2024 the District Judge gave the Husband sole care and control of the son and the Wife sole care and control of the daughter, valued the matrimonial flat at S$550,000, and ordered the flat and the proceeds of replacement units for two demolished properties in China held in the Wife's name (the Anhui Properties) to be divided 41:59 in the Husband's favour. Both sides appealed to the High Court (Family Division): the Husband in District Court Appeal No 14 of 2024, with three summonses to adduce further material, and the Wife in District Court Appeal No 19 of 2024, with HCF/SUM 184/2024 to adduce fresh bank evidence.

1. Whether the split care and control arrangement for the two children should be changed
2. Whether the District Judge erred in valuing the matrimonial home, excluding the Husband's claimed liabilities, dealing with the Anhui Properties and disregarding the Divorce Agreement
3. Whether the Wife dissipated assets or failed to make full disclosure so as to justify an uplift or adverse inference
4. Whether S$133,089.30 in the Wife's Account 2834 was wrongly added to the pool of matrimonial assets

On care and control, the judge found no merit in the Husband's allegations that the Wife neglected the daughter's health or favoured her. The Wife was fully capable, the siblings met every two weeks, and after speaking to both children separately the judge kept the arrangement, noting that courts are usually reluctant to separate siblings but the rule is not inflexible. The Wife had also pleaded split care and control as an alternative.

On the assets, an appellate court interferes only for an error of law or a clearly wrong exercise of discretion. The January 2023 valuation reflected delays caused by the Husband's many summonses and was a reasonable estimate. The claimed liabilities, including an alleged gift under an unsigned will, sums said to be owed to his mother, service fees and loans backed by redacted IOUs, were unproven. His claim that the Anhui Properties were held on trust for his family had no supporting evidence. The Divorce Agreement was one-sided and signed by the Wife without independent counsel, and the District Judge had accepted that she signed under duress, so it deserved no weight.

On dissipation and disclosure, the burden lay on the Husband, and under BOR v BOS there must be some evidence of deliberate concealment or depletion. He offered only bare assertions about the S$60,000 withdrawal, the Chinese bank accounts and the China pension moneys. His complaint of unfair treatment reflected a misunderstanding of court procedure, and his fresh evidence could have been obtained earlier.

On the Wife's appeal, the judge accepted that COVID-19 travel restrictions kept her from obtaining the bank records earlier. The records showed matching transfers between the fixed deposit Account 2834 and the savings Account 5053, corroborating that the accounts were linked, so counting both balances was an error.

The High Court dismissed the Husband's appeal in its entirety, together with his three summonses, and allowed the Wife's appeal and her application to adduce fresh evidence, ordering that S$133,089.30 should not have been added to the pool of matrimonial assets. Parties were to file submissions on costs by 28 February 2025.