UTN v UTO: Division of Matrimonial Assets and Wife's Maintenance in Divorce

In a divorce case between UTN (Husband) and UTO (Wife) at the Family Justice Courts of Singapore, the court addressed the division of matrimonial assets and maintenance for the Wife. The court determined the total value of matrimonial assets to be $7,052,255.58 and ordered a division of 44% to the Husband and 56% to the Wife. The court declined to order maintenance for the Wife. The court ordered costs of the ancillary matters proceedings and the divorce to be borne by the Husband.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Family Justice Courts of the republic of singapore

1.2 Outcome

Costs of the ancillary matters proceedings and the divorce to be borne by the Husband.

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court case involving UTN and UTO, addressing the division of matrimonial assets and maintenance for the wife after a 31-year marriage.

1.7 Decision Date

30 July 2019

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
UTN	Plaintiff, Defendant-in-Counterclaim	Individual	Share of matrimonial assets is $3,102,992.46	Partial	Raymund A Anthony of Gateway Law Corporation
UTO	Defendant	Individual	Share of matrimonial assets is $3,949,263.12	Partial	Wang Liansheng of Bih Li & Lee LLP Loh Wai Mooi of Bih Li & Lee LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Tan Puay Boon	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Raymund A Anthony	Gateway Law Corporation
Wang Liansheng	Bih Li & Lee LLP
Loh Wai Mooi	Bih Li & Lee LLP

4. Facts

The Plaintiff and the Defendant were married in the United Kingdom in 1986.
The Husband filed for divorce on the ground of four years’ separation on 30 October 2015.
Interim judgment was granted on an uncontested basis on 11 January 2017 on the Wife’s amended counterclaim.
The Parties own a condominium unit in the Newton area that was bought in 2011.
The Parties own a condominium unit in Havelock Road that was bought for investment purposes in 1998.
The Husband moved out of the Parties’ earlier matrimonial home in 2003.
The Husband was having an extra-marital affair since 1999.

5. Formal Citations

UTN v UTO, Divorce (Transferred) No 4897 of 2015, [2019] SGHCF 18

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1986-01-01	Parties married in the United Kingdom
1990-01-01	Parties bought the Toh Tuck Road Property
1994-01-01	Toh Tuck Road Property sold
1994-06-01	Parties bought the Novena Property
1998-01-01	Parties bought the Havelock Road Property
1999-01-01	Husband began extra-marital affair
2000-06-05	Husband made payment of $100,000.00 to the Third Party
2003-01-01	Husband moved out of the Parties’ earlier matrimonial home
2008-01-01	Wife had cancer
2010-06-19	Gilstead Road Property transferred to the Third Party
2011-07-01	Novena Property was sold en bloc
2011-09-01	Parties bought a condominium unit in the Newton area
2013-04-19	Husband made payment of a sum of $1,317.48 for the MCST fees of the Gilstead Road Property
2015-02-18	Husband made payment of $2,000.00 to Third Party
2015-02-23	Husband made payment of $27,400.00 to Third Party
2015-02-27	Husband made payment of $3,000.00 to Third Party
2015-08-11	Husband made payment of $2,000.00 to Third Party
2015-10-30	Husband filed for divorce
2016-05-27	Third Party paid Husband $40,000.00
2016-07-11	Third Party paid Husband $20,000.00
2016-11-07	Husband made payment of $1,500.00 to Third Party
2017-01-11	Interim judgment was granted on an uncontested basis on the Wife’s amended counterclaim
2017-01-12	CapMallAB220112 shares in the CDP Account were sold
2017-06-01	Wife’s father passed away
2017-09-20	Three bank accounts of the Wife were closed
2018-01-01	Husband received stock options
2018-08-08	Ancillary matters hearing
2018-08-27	Ancillary matters hearing
2019-07-31	Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

Division of Matrimonial Assets
- Outcome: The court determined the total value of matrimonial assets to be $7,052,255.58 and ordered a division of 44% to the Husband and 56% to the Wife.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2007] 3 SLR(R) 743
  - [2016] 3 SLR 1172
  - [2016] 2 SLR 686
  - [2017] SGCA 34
  - [2017] SGHCF 14
  - [2017] 1 SLR 609
  - [2010] 4 SLR 617
  - [2002] 1 SLR(R) 76
  - [2015] 4 SLR 1043
  - [2016] 3 SLR 1137
  - [2015] SGCA 52
Maintenance for the Wife
- Outcome: The court declined to order maintenance for the Wife.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2012] 2 SLR 506
  - [2007] 3 SLR(R) 233
  - [2016] SGCA 2
  - [2012] 4 SLR 405
  - [1993] 2 SLR(R) 545

8. Remedies Sought

Division of matrimonial assets
Maintenance for the Wife
Costs for the divorce and ancillary matters

9. Cause of Actions

Divorce
Unreasonable behaviour

10. Practice Areas

Divorce
Family Law

11. Industries

Financial
Petrol chemical

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
NK v NL	High Court	Yes	[2007] 3 SLR(R) 743	Singapore	Cited for the two distinct methodologies applied in the division of matrimonial assets – the global assessment methodology and the classification methodology.
TNC v TND	High Court	Yes	[2016] 3 SLR 1172	Singapore	Cited for the global assessment methodology being the appropriate methodology to use when there are not multiple classes of assets to which the Parties had made different contributions.
ARY v ARX and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 2 SLR 686	Singapore	Cited for the date for the identification of matrimonial assets is at the date of the interim judgment.
TND v TNC and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] SGCA 34	Singapore	Cited for the general rule that the assessment of the value of the matrimonial assets is at the date of the ancillary matters hearing.
UBD v UBE	High Court	Yes	[2017] SGHCF 14	Singapore	Cited for the High Court's decision to depart from the default position and delineate and value the disputed bank accounts as at the interim judgment date.
TNL v TNK and another appeal and another matter	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 1 SLR 609	Singapore	Cited for the guidelines on dealing with dissipated assets.
AJR v AJS	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 4 SLR 617	Singapore	Cited for the amount that the court deems to have been unfairly or unjustly dissipated would be notionally added to the total net value of the matrimonial assets available for distribution.
Chan Teck Hock David v Leong Mei Chuan	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2002] 1 SLR(R) 76	Singapore	Cited for the term “matrimonial asset” is given a wide meaning to include “any asset of any nature”, and includes vested stock options as well as unvested stock options which the Court classified as being choses in action and contractual rights.
ANJ v ANK	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 4 SLR 1043	Singapore	Cited for the structured approach for the division of assets for dual income marriages.
TIT v TIU and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 3 SLR 1137	Singapore	Cited for explaining the three-step approach in ANJ v ANK.
Twiss, Christopher James Hans v Twiss, Yvonne Prendergast	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] SGCA 52	Singapore	Cited for the rental income received from the Havelock Road Property was used to pay the monthly loan instalments, it ought to be considered as belonging jointly to the Parties, as it was income earned on an asset that was jointly owned.
Foo Ah Yan v Chiam Heng Chow	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] 2 SLR 506	Singapore	Cited for the overarching principle embodied in s 114(2) of the Act is that of financial preservation, which requires the wife to be maintained at a standard, which is, to a reasonable extent, commensurate with the standard of living she had enjoyed during the marriage.
BG v BF	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 3 SLR(R) 233	Singapore	Cited for maintenance also plays only a supplementary role to an order for division of matrimonial assets.
ATE v ATD and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] SGCA 2	Singapore	Cited for the court takes into account the Wife’s share of the matrimonial assets upon division before arriving at an appropriate maintenance sum.
Wan Lai Cheng v Quek Seow Kee	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] 4 SLR 405	Singapore	Cited for the method of quantifying an appropriate multiplier for a lump sum maintenance award set out in our earlier decision in Ong Chen Leng v Tan Sau Poo [1993] 2 SLR(R) 545 (at [35]).
Ong Chen Leng v Tan Sau Poo	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1993] 2 SLR(R) 545	Singapore	Cited for the method of quantifying an appropriate multiplier for a lump sum maintenance award.
Pang Rosaline v Chan Kong Chin	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 4 SLR(R) 935	Singapore	Cited for the managerial role of a wife in ensuring the smooth running of a household is at least as essential and important as the direct performance of the chores itself, especially where the wife personally took care of the needs of the children while holding down a regular full-time job.
Smith Brian Walker v Foo Moo Chye Julie	High Court	Yes	[2009] SGHC 247	Singapore	Cited for the wife had helped the husband to secure a consultancy project during the period of cohabitation before their marriage (at [13]). He received from this a substantial commission that he used to fund the purchase of a property. The High Court accepted the significant indirect contribution of the wife, and increased her share in the property.
UNE v UNF	High Court	Yes	[2018] SGHCF 12	Singapore	Cited for the parties were married for 29 years and have two adult children. The wife was the main caregiver, and worked full-time for around 19 years of the marriage before assuming the role of a homemaker for the final ten years. The High Court held the ratio of indirect contributions between the wife and the husband to be 75:25.
UAP v UAQ	High Court	Yes	[2018] 3 SLR 319	Singapore	Cited for the wife had made serious sacrifices to support the husband in his overseas attachments and night classes for his post-graduate degree while she took care of their child. This was considered a significant indirect contribution (see [80]), and the High Court held the ratio of indirect contributions between the wife and the husband to be 80:20.
UTJ v UTK	High Court	Yes	[2019] SGHCF 6	Singapore	Cited for the parties were married for 41 years. They had both worked and relied on a domestic helper who was supervised by the wife. The wife retired in 2004, and parties divorced on May 2015. The husband contributed to the bulk of the family expenses, and the High Court held the ratio of indirect contributions between the wife and the husband to be 60:40.
Chan Tin Sun v Fong Quay Sim	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 2 SLR 195	Singapore	Cited for the Husband has not shown any substratum of evidence that establishes a prima facie case against the Wife, the person against whom the inference is to be drawn.
JBB v JBA	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 5 SLR 153	Singapore	Cited for the Husband has been uncooperative in disclosing his assets despite the multiple requests made in discovery and interrogatories.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Matrimonial assets
Division of matrimonial assets
Maintenance
Global assessment methodology
Direct contributions
Indirect contributions
Average ratio
Adverse inference

15.2 Keywords

Divorce
Matrimonial Assets
Maintenance
Singapore
Family Law

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Family Law	95
Matrimonial Assets	95
Divorce	90
Maintenance	90
Costs	40
Civil Procedure	40

16. Subjects

Family Law
Divorce
Matrimonial Assets
Maintenance