XIU v XIV

Facts

XIU (the Wife) and XIV (the Husband) married on 30 December 1995 and have two adult children. The marriage broke down on 7 December 2021, when the Wife confronted the Husband with a recording revealing his unfaithfulness and intention to divorce; he left the home. Interim judgment was granted on 2 March 2022 in Divorce (Transferred) No 6138 of 2021. The Wife, long an airline employee, became a businesswoman in her fifties and runs a skincare distribution company and a dance competition company. The Husband held senior roles in telecommunications and security firms, retired early in 2018 to trade shares, and resumed work in 2022. The parties' two properties, held on trust for the children, were by agreement left out of the pool, though their contributions to them counted.

The Wife sought division of the matrimonial assets and lump sum maintenance. She asked the court to draw an adverse inference against the Husband for alleged dissipation: large sales of his shares in Company [D] with transfers of proceeds to two friends, the sale of his company, Company [E], to a friend for S$100.00, and large cash withdrawals around the breakdown date. The Husband said the share transfers followed an oral share purchase agreement with his friends recorded in a handwritten tally, and that the withdrawals were for personal expenses, his mother's medical costs, a loan and gambling.

Issues

1. How disputed assets should be valued and which should be included in the pool
2. Whether the Husband dissipated assets in contemplation of divorce so that sums should be added back
3. What ratio of division was just and equitable on the structured approach
4. Whether the Wife should receive lump sum maintenance and in what amount

Holding

The High Court ordered the matrimonial pool of S$5,838,200.75 to be divided 55% to the Wife and 45% to the Husband, after adding back S$2,056,094.31 found to have been dissipated by the Husband and deducting the Wife's S$568,467.00 liability for one property, and ordered the Husband to pay the Wife lump sum maintenance of S$84,000.00. Each party bore their own costs, with liberty to apply.

Reasoning

On valuation, the court generally preferred the Wife's figures, which were closer to the interim judgment date and backed by statements. The Husband's values for the luxury watches and bags appeared only in the joint summary, which is not sworn evidence. It rejected his claim that the Company [E] fees and dividends had been spent, as he gave no proof, and excluded assets he alleged the Wife held but could not prove.

On dissipation, the court applied UZN v UZM [2021] 1 SLR 426. It relied on the car recording, in which the Husband spoke of seeing a lawyer to cover his assets, and found the handwritten tally self-serving and unsupported, so the claimed agreement might be a sham. It found the share sales and transfers to his friends were made in contemplation of divorce, as separation was forthcoming by July 2020. It found the sale of Company [E] for S$100.00, after it had paid large fees and dividends, was a sham, and that the unexplained withdrawals and an undocumented loan were also dissipation. These sums were added back without crediting them to his direct contributions.

On division, the Wife led the couple's property investments, so direct contributions were nearly equal once the two properties were counted, with Company [E] treated as shared equally under their profit-sharing arrangement. Indirect contributions were set at 60% to the Wife, recognising her care of the children while crediting the Husband's move to Hong Kong, his support of her business and the helper.

On maintenance, the purpose is financial preservation, assessed alongside the assets received. Her reasonable expenses were S$3,500.00 a month, excluding the property payments already deducted, and given her income and large share, a two-year multiplier was appropriate.

From the judgment