YAM v YAN

Facts

The parties married on 13 October 2006 and have four children. Interim judgment of divorce was granted on 15 January 2024, uncontested, on the basis of the husband's behaviour, and by consent the husband has care and control of the children with joint custody. The wife, in her early forties, is a freelance tuition teacher; the husband, nearly 60, is the chef and owner of two restaurant companies, one of which had held a Michelin star.

In Divorce (Transferred) No 3533 of 2023 the High Court (Family Division) heard the ancillary matters. The main dispute was the value of the restaurants. With the lease of the original premises due to expire in February 2025, the husband took leases of smaller alternative premises; the original lease was later renewed for two years, on what he said was a verbal condition that he renovate. The wife's valuer put the restaurants at S$2,530,275 to S$4,310,164; the husband's at S$284,000 to S$567,000. The parties also disputed whether a China property and a diamond ring in the wife's name were matrimonial assets, the ratio of indirect contributions, whether an adverse inference or negative contributions should be applied against the husband, the wife's claim to maintenance, and the husband's claim for child maintenance of S$5,000 a month.

Issues

1. How the restaurants should be valued, including whether the alternative premises' leases would be renewed
2. Whether the China property and the diamond ring were matrimonial assets
3. How the matrimonial pool should be divided, and whether an adverse inference or negative contributions should apply against the husband
4. Whether the wife should receive spousal maintenance and how child maintenance should be shared

Holding

The High Court ordered the matrimonial pool of S$4,791,825.94 to be divided 60.585% to the husband and 39.415% to the wife, giving the wife S$1,888,698.19. The wife's interest in the matrimonial home was to be transferred to the husband without cash consideration or CPF refund, and the husband was to pay her S$346,903.54 within three months of final judgment, each party keeping the assets in their own name. No spousal maintenance was ordered. The wife was ordered to pay child maintenance of S$600 a month and bear the children's expenses during her access. Each party bore their own costs.

Reasoning

The husband consistently said he took the alternative premises only as a fallback, and the wife's claim that he had long planned to expand there was unsupported and raised late, so the restaurants were valued on non-renewal. The husband's valuation explained its revenue, costs and depreciation and included a sanity check, while the wife's report left key figures unexplained and was hard to reconcile with recent losses. The medium figure of S$404,640 was adopted.

The China property was bought during the marriage and the wife did not prove it was a gift. The ring came from a S$300,000 cash gift from the husband, a pure inter-spousal gift that remained a matrimonial asset, and on her own figures it was valued at S$250,000.

The husband paid the wife a salary that rose over the years, so he made most of the indirect financial contributions. The wife likely managed the domestic helpers, but her contribution was reduced for the helpers' assistance and her strained relationship with the eldest daughter; indirect contributions were 60:40 for the husband. Her claims of non-disclosure, delay and abuse were unsupported, and the husband had complied with the disclosure order.

Given her share of the assets, her tutoring work, rental from two Australian properties and that she does not have care and control, no maintenance was justified. Most of the children's claimed expenses were accepted, but housing costs, internet and holidays were disallowed; the wife's lower earning capacity, against the husband's declared income and his retention of the home, supported a modest contribution.

From the judgment