APE v APF: Division of Matrimonial Assets, Child Custody, and Maintenance Dispute

In APE v APF, the Singapore High Court addressed ancillary matters arising from the divorce of APE (wife/plaintiff) and APF (husband/defendant). The court, presided over by Justice Tan Siong Thye, rendered its oral decision on 29 October 2014, with written reasons provided on 20 January 2015. The key issues were the custody, care and control of their daughter, maintenance for the wife and child, and the division of matrimonial assets, particularly the matrimonial home. The court granted joint custody to both parents, with care and control to the wife and initially supervised access to the husband, ordered the parties to attend parenting courses and counselling, made orders for child maintenance, and divided the matrimonial home 70:30 in favor of the wife.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Orders made for joint custody with supervised access, child maintenance, and division of matrimonial assets.

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case concerning ancillary matters in a divorce, focusing on child custody, maintenance, and division of matrimonial assets.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
APEPlaintiffIndividualJoint custody of child granted; care and control to Plaintiff; Matrimonial home divided 70:30 in Plaintiff's favorPartial
APFDefendantIndividualJoint custody of child granted; supervised access granted; division of matrimonial assets 30:70Partial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Siong ThyeJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Koh Tien HuaHarry Elias Partnership LLP
Michelle NgHarry Elias Partnership LLP
Marcus SimHarry Elias Partnership LLP
Sim Bock EngWong Partnership LLP
Hazell NgWong Partnership LLP

4. Facts

  1. The husband and wife were married in 1999 and have one daughter born in 2004.
  2. The husband was a commercial pilot, and the wife was a bank officer.
  3. The husband underwent training in the US from 2004 to 2007, returning to Singapore only twice during that period.
  4. The marriage broke down in 2010, and the wife commenced divorce proceedings on 11 November 2010.
  5. The wife was the primary caregiver for the child.
  6. The husband admitted to being estranged from the child.
  7. The wife sought sole custody of the child, while the husband sought joint custody.
  8. The wife sought a nominal sum of $1 for spousal maintenance to preserve her rights.
  9. The parties disagreed on the division of the matrimonial home, with the wife seeking a 95:5 split in her favor and the husband seeking a 65:35 split in his favor.

5. Formal Citations

  1. APE v APF, Divorce Transfer No 5657 of 2010, [2015] SGHC 17
  2. APE v APF, Civil Appeal No 186 of 2014, [2015] SGCA 47

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Parties married
Daughter born
Husband underwent training in the United States of America
Husband returned from the United States of America
Husband asked to leave the matrimonial home
Wife commenced divorce proceedings
Interim judgment granted on grounds of husband’s unreasonable behaviour
Oral decision rendered
Reasons for decision given
Appeal dismissed by the Court of Appeal

7. Legal Issues

  1. Child Custody
    • Outcome: The court granted joint custody to both parents, with care and control to the wife and initially supervised access to the husband.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Best interests of the child
      • Joint custody vs. sole custody
      • Supervised access vs. liberal access
    • Related Cases:
      • [2006] 1 SLR(R) 135
      • [2005] 3 SLR(R) 690
      • [2011] SGDC 135
      • [2005] SGDC 8
      • [2008] SGDC 279
      • [2011] SGCA 25
      • [2007] 3 SLR(R) 233
      • [2013] SGDC 261
      • [1996] SGHC 120
  2. Child Maintenance
    • Outcome: The court ordered the husband and wife to share equally in the maintenance of the child, estimated at $1,500 per month.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Reasonable needs of the child
      • Extravagant lifestyle
      • Educational expenses
    • Related Cases:
      • [2006] 1 SLR(R) 416
  3. Division of Matrimonial Assets
    • Outcome: The court divided the matrimonial home 70:30 in favor of the wife, considering both direct and indirect contributions.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Direct contributions
      • Indirect contributions
      • Just and equitable division
    • Related Cases:
      • [2011] 4 SLR 1121
      • [2013] SGHC 92
      • [1994] 2 SLR(R) 133
      • [2013] 2 SLR 324
  4. Spousal Maintenance
    • Outcome: The court made no order as to the wife’s maintenance, but stated that the wife would not be precluded from applying for maintenance for herself in the future if there was a need.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Nominal maintenance
      • Preservation of rights
      • Future application for maintenance
    • Related Cases:
      • [1996] 3 SLR(R) 605

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Custody of child
  2. Care and control of child
  3. Maintenance for wife
  4. Maintenance for child
  5. Division of matrimonial assets

9. Cause of Actions

  • Divorce
  • Ancillary Matters

10. Practice Areas

  • Family Litigation
  • Divorce
  • Child Custody
  • Spousal Maintenance
  • Child Maintenance
  • Division of Matrimonial Assets

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
IW v IXHigh CourtYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 135SingaporeCited for the principle that the welfare of the child is always of paramount consideration.
CX v CY (minor: custody and access)High CourtYes[2005] 3 SLR(R) 690SingaporeCited for the principle that sole custody orders would be granted in exceptional circumstances.
ARI v ARJDistrict CourtYes[2011] SGDC 135SingaporeCited as an example where sole custody was granted to the wife due to the husband's unsubstantiated allegations of child abuse.
GK v GLDistrict CourtYes[2005] SGDC 8SingaporeCited as an example where sole custody was granted to the wife due to the acrimonious relationship and inability to communicate between the parties.
YB v YCDistrict CourtYes[2008] SGDC 279SingaporeCited as an example where sole custody was granted to the wife as the husband had been extremely litigious without any sincere intention to be genuinely involved in the children’s lives.
ZO v ZP and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2011] SGCA 25SingaporeCited for the principle that joint custody is the norm rather than the exception.
BG v BFCourt of AppealYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 233SingaporeCited for the principle that the child should be allowed to interact with both parents to get as far as possible a normal family life.
BKJ v BKKDistrict CourtYes[2013] SGDC 261SingaporeCited for the principle that supervised access will normally only be necessary if there is a risk of abuse or some other kind of danger to the child.
Tay Ah Hoe (m w) v Kwek Lye SengHigh CourtYes[1996] SGHC 120SingaporeCited for the principle that supervised access would only be granted in very exceptional circumstances.
In re L (A Child) (Contact: Domestic Violence)English Court of AppealYes[2001] Fam 260EnglandCited for the principle that decisions about contact should be child-centred and related to the specific child in its present circumstances.
K (Children)English Court of AppealYes[2005] EWCA Civ 1691EnglandCited regarding an interim supervised contact order to give children and their father an opportunity to resume their relationship.
Tan Bee Giok v Loh Kum YongCourt of AppealYes[1996] 3 SLR(R) 605SingaporeCited for the principle that the court could not vary the maintenance order if there was no subsisting order for maintenance.
Wong Ser Wan v Ng Cheong LingHigh CourtYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 416SingaporeCited for the principle that maintenance is ordered in order to meet the reasonable needs of the child and if the child’s lifestyle is overly extravagant, the husband should not be made to bear the costs of it.
Anthony Patrick Nathan v Chan Siew ChinHigh CourtYes[2011] 4 SLR 1121SingaporeCited for the manner in which the division of matrimonial assets was to be done.
BHL v BHMHigh CourtYes[2013] SGHC 92SingaporeCited for the principle that courts have considered and given weight to the fact that parties had agreed for one party’s income to be used for household expenses with the remaining income and other party’s income used for savings.
Chan Yeong Keay v Yeo Mei LingHigh CourtYes[1994] 2 SLR(R) 133SingaporeCited for the principle that courts have considered and given weight to the fact that parties had agreed for one party’s income to be used for household expenses with the remaining income and other party’s income used for savings.
BCB v BCCHigh CourtYes[2013] 2 SLR 324SingaporeCited for the principle that courts have considered and given weight to the fact that parties had agreed for one party’s income to be used for household expenses with the remaining income and other party’s income used for savings.
APE v APFCourt of AppealYes[2015] SGCA 47SingaporeThe appeal to this decision in Civil Appeal No 186 of 2014 was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 29 July 2015.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36, 2013 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Ancillary matters
  • Custody
  • Care and control
  • Maintenance
  • Matrimonial assets
  • Joint custody
  • Supervised access
  • Direct contributions
  • Indirect contributions
  • Parenting course
  • Counselling

15.2 Keywords

  • divorce
  • ancillary matters
  • child custody
  • maintenance
  • matrimonial assets
  • Singapore
  • family law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Divorce95
Family Law95
Division of Assets90
Matrimonial Assets90
Child Custody80
Child Support80
Children's Welfare75
Spousal Support70

16. Subjects

  • Family Law
  • Divorce
  • Child Custody
  • Maintenance
  • Division of Matrimonial Assets