DDM v DDL

The wife (DDM), a Singaporean who runs a company, [B], and the husband (DDL), a Malaysian and Singapore permanent resident who described himself as a retiree, married on 28 May 2005 and have three children. Interim judgment was granted on 27 March 2020 on the basis that they had lived apart for at least four years before the writ was filed on 19 October 2018. Over the marriage the couple bought many properties in Singapore, Malaysia and the United States, and both were involved in running software and hostel companies.

At the ancillary matters hearing in Divorce (Transferred) No 4849 of 2018, the parties disputed which assets were in the pool, how some were valued, and how the pool should be divided. The husband said nearly all the properties were funded by profits from two properties bought before the marriage with mostly his own money, and sought 80% overall. The wife said she contributed equally to the first property, Marbella, with money from her mother and her CPF, and that business profits and rental income also funded the later purchases. The husband appealed against the valuation of the pool, its division and the transfer orders; these are the grounds on those points.

1. Whether the wife's company [B], set up in July 2018, and the husband's unexplained credit card and bank liabilities belonged in the pool of matrimonial assets.
2. How disputed assets, including two Geylang properties, land in Pontian and the husband's pre-marriage CPF moneys, should be valued or treated.
3. What the parties' direct and indirect contributions were, and whether adverse inferences should be drawn against either party.
4. How the division should be carried out through transfers of assets.

The court excluded [B] and the software distribution rights it held, following Lim Ngeok Yuen v Lim Soon Heng Victor [2006] SGHC 83 and Woon Wee Lee v Koh Ai Hua [2012] SGHC 128: the evidence showed the marriage had broken down by around 2015 and certainly by 2017, the husband made no contribution, and his claim that the wife had stolen the distributorship was a bare allegation. His liabilities were excluded because he never explained how or when they arose.

The wife's updated Geylang valuations and her Pontian valuation were accepted, as the husband offered no contrary valuation. His pre-marriage CPF Medisave and Special Account balances were excluded, but his Ordinary Account moneys stayed in because he had used them to buy properties during the marriage.

The husband had no documents showing his claimed 97% share of Marbella or any profit from his other pre-marriage property, and the joint bank loan could not be credited to him alone. The court accepted the wife's CPF evidence and her mother's gift, found both ran the companies, that company profits and rental income helped fund the later purchases, and fixed direct contributions at 51% to the husband. Each had cared for the children at different times, so indirect contributions were equal. No adverse inference was drawn: the wife withheld only what discovery had not ordered, and the husband later disclosed his rental income.

On transfers, there was no principled reason to make the wife take a stake in a Malaysian company, with regulatory obstacles and a third-party shareholder; joint assets were dealt with first.

The court ordered the pool, valued at S$8,879,649.47, to be divided 50.5% to the husband and 49.5% to the wife. It ordered the husband's share of the Orchard Road property, two UOB accounts, his CPF Ordinary and Medisave moneys and his share of four US properties to be transferred to the wife, with $121,409.91 of the River Valley sale proceeds paid over to her, and refused to order his share in the company holding the Pontian land transferred to her. Each party bore his or her own costs.