XCG v XCF

Facts

The parties, aged 66 and 68, married in March 1983 and divorced in 2022 after 39 years, with interim judgment granted in July 2022. At the ancillary hearing the parties accepted an equal division of matrimonial assets. The District Judge assessed the pool at S$669,433.44, declined to draw an adverse inference against the husband or find that he had dissipated money, set out the division, and refused spousal maintenance.

The wife appealed in District Court Appeal No 74 of 2024, arguing that the division formula was miscalculated, that the marriage was wrongly treated as a single-income marriage, that an adverse inference should have been drawn, and that maintenance should have been ordered. By Summons No 376 of 2024 she sought to adduce 20 items of fresh evidence, mostly documents found among the husband's belongings after he moved out, said to show his crude oil consultancy and commission business, together with bank cards, a recording of a call in November 2023, a summary of her bank statements, a testimonial from their son and his ACRA profile. The District Judge had acknowledged the formula error in a later application by the husband but could not amend her orders while the appeal was pending.

Issues

1. Whether the wife could adduce the fresh evidence under the Ladd v Marshall test.
2. Whether the marriage was correctly classified as a single-income marriage.
3. Whether an adverse inference should have been drawn against the husband.
4. Whether spousal maintenance should have been ordered.

Holding

The High Court dismissed the application to adduce fresh evidence and dismissed the appeal, save for its finding that the division formula contained an accidental slip, for which it set out the corrected formula. Each party was to bear its own costs.

Reasoning

Most of the fresh evidence had been available before the hearing and could have been obtained with reasonable diligence, for instance through discovery; her claim that former solicitors failed to advise her did not help. None of it was material, as it showed possible revenue at scattered dates rather than the husband's position at the hearing, and the recording post-dated the hearing. The court also declined to accept further evidence after reserving judgment.

The formula error was an accidental slip that the District Judge could have corrected; pursuing it by appeal was a costlier route to the same result.

The wife's claim that her lawyers agreed to the single-income label without her approval was a bare assertion. Applying UBM v UBN [2017] SGHCF 13, the question is qualitative: the husband financed most of the properties and was the primary earner, while she was primarily the homemaker. Her CPF balance of S$150,000 spread over the marriage did not show significant income, and there was no evidence of a steady income from her businesses.

Renewal of the husband's ACRA business registration alone did not justify an adverse inference, and success in his career overseas did not mean he had substantial savings.

Maintenance is supplementary to division and aims to even out inequality. The husband was retired with no income and few assets, while the wife would receive half the pool, so maintenance was unnecessary.

From the judgment