TNC v TND: Division of Matrimonial Assets, Maintenance, and Child Custody under the Women's Charter

In the Family Justice Courts of Singapore, the case of TNC v TND, heard on 6 November, 21 December 2015; 21, 25 and 27 January, 12 February 2016 and decided on 17 May 2016, concerned ancillary reliefs related to child custody, maintenance, and the division of matrimonial assets under Part X of the Women’s Charter. The court, employing the classification methodology, divided classes of matrimonial assets separately. The court ordered joint custody of the child, with care and control to the Wife and access to the Husband. The Husband was ordered to transfer assets to the Wife, but no maintenance was awarded to the Wife. The Husband was ordered to pay monthly maintenance for the child.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Family Justice Courts of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Orders made for joint custody, wife to have care and control of child, husband to have access. Husband to transfer assets to wife. No maintenance for wife. Husband to pay monthly maintenance for child.

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court case concerning division of matrimonial assets, maintenance, and child custody under the Women's Charter. The court employed the classification methodology.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
TNCPlaintiffIndividualAssets TransferredPartialQuek Seng Soon Winston
TNDDefendantIndividualMaintenance OrderPartialChoh Thian Chee Irving, Looi Min Yi Stephanie

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Debbie OngJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Quek Seng Soon WinstonWinston Quek & Company
Choh Thian Chee IrvingOptimus Chambers LLC
Looi Min Yi StephanieOptimus Chambers LLC

4. Facts

  1. The parties were married on 22 September 2001 in Singapore.
  2. A son was born to the parties on 18 May 2011.
  3. The Husband is retired and was previously employed by a multinational energy corporation.
  4. The Wife had been a homemaker since 2006 and was the primary caregiver of their child.
  5. The parties ventured into property development from 2002 to 2012.
  6. The interim judgment of divorce was granted on 11 September 2014.
  7. The Bayshore property was acquired prior to the marriage but used by both parties for shelter.

5. Formal Citations

  1. TNC v TND, Divorce Transfer No 5443 of 2013, [2016] SGHCF 9

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Parties married in Singapore
Parties ventured into property development
Plaintiff became a homemaker
Son born to the parties
Parties ceased property development business
Parties separated
Planning permission issued to develop Maude Road properties into hotels
Wife returned to Singapore for good
Divorce proceedings commenced
Husband received pension earnings
Planning permission to develop Maude Road properties into hotels was supposed to have lapsed
Interim judgment of divorce granted
Wife took rental income from Roberts Lane property
Wife took rental income from Roberts Lane property
Wife took rental income from Maude Road property
Loan taken out for Maude Road properties
Wife claimed Husband took rental income from Singapore rental properties
Wife claimed Husband took rental income from Malaysian properties
Husband's submissions filed
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Husband submitted letter to court
Hearing
Decision on ancillary matters given
Hearing
Grounds of decision issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Division of Matrimonial Assets
    • Outcome: The court divided the matrimonial assets into two groups, applying different weightages to direct contributions for each group while maintaining the same percentage for indirect contributions.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2007] 3 SLR(R) 743
      • [2011] 2 SLR 1157
      • [2014] 1 SLR 1342
      • [2011] 4 SLR 1121
      • [2016] 2 SLR 686
      • [2015] 4 SLR 1043
      • [2007] 3 SLR(R) 520
      • [2007] 2 SLR(R) 729
      • [2014] 1 SLR 629
      • [2013] 1 SLR 476
  2. Maintenance for Wife
    • Outcome: The court ordered that there shall be no maintenance for the Wife.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2011] 2 SLR 1157
      • [2007] 3 SLR(R) 520
      • [2016] 2 SLR 686
      • [2004] 1 SLR(R) 457
  3. Maintenance for Child
    • Outcome: The court ordered that the Husband pay a monthly sum of S$3,500 for the son’s maintenance.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Child Custody and Access
    • Outcome: The court ordered that the Husband and Wife shall both have joint custody of their son, with the Wife having care and control and the Husband having weekly access.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Division of Matrimonial Assets
  2. Maintenance for Wife
  3. Maintenance for Child
  4. Custody of Child
  5. Access to Child

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Divorce
  • Family Law
  • Child Custody
  • Matrimonial Asset Division

11. Industries

  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
NK v NLCourt of AppealYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 743SingaporeCited for the principle that both the classification methodology and the global assessment methodology are consistent with the legislative framework provided by s 112 of the Women’s Charter on the division of matrimonial assets and neither approach is superior to the other.
Yeo Chong Lin v Tay Ang Choo Nancy and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2011] 2 SLR 1157SingaporeCited for the view that Parliament did not intend to prescribe a definite cut-off date for identifying the pool of matrimonial assets, but once an asset is regarded as a matrimonial asset to be divided, its value should be assessed at the date of the hearing of ancillary matters.
Wong Kien Keong v Khoo Hoon EngHigh CourtYes[2014] 1 SLR 1342SingaporeCited for the proposition that there is judicial discretion to choose another date which might be more just for valuing matrimonial assets.
Anthony Patrick Nathan v Chan Siew ChinHigh CourtYes[2011] 4 SLR 1121SingaporeCited for the observation that the date on which matrimonial assets should be valued is up to the court’s discretion and what is critical is to arrive at a ‘just and equitable division’ in all the circumstances in each particular case.
ARY v ARX and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2016] 2 SLR 686SingaporeCited for the holding that the date of the interim judgment of divorce ought to be taken as a starting point for identifying the pool of matrimonial assets, with the court possessing the discretion to depart from it in deserving cases, and that the court has the discretion to determine the date at which those assets should be valued.
BJS v BJTHigh CourtYes[2013] 4 SLR 41SingaporeCited for the principle that the requirement of ordinary use of a property as a matrimonial asset would not be satisfied if the parties’ use of or stay at the property was “occasional or casual”.
Ryan Neil John v Berger RosalineHigh CourtYes[2000] 3 SLR(R) 647SingaporeCited as an example of casual residence, staying in a property for no more than 21 days out of 14 years of marriage.
JAF v JAEHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHC 114SingaporeCited as an example of casual residence, staying in a property on only two occasions throughout the marriage.
Ong Boon Huat Samuel v Chan Mei Lan KristineHigh CourtYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 729SingaporeCited for the principle that the court’s power to divide any asset under s 112 is a discretionary power and it may decline to do so where there is a valid reason.
Oh Choon v Lee Siew LinCourt of AppealYes[2014] 1 SLR 629SingaporeCited for the principle that the court may give a spouse a lower proportion of a pool of assets to reflect the lower contributions made by that spouse after the marriage has broken down.
ANJ v ANKCourt of AppealYes[2015] 4 SLR 1043SingaporeCited for the structured approach to dividing matrimonial assets, comprising the steps of ascribing ratios for direct and indirect contributions and deriving an average percentage contribution.
Lock Yeng Fun v Chua Hock ChyeCourt of AppealYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 520SingaporeCited for the principle that matrimonial assets are not to be viewed as belonging to the husband or the wife exclusively, but as community property to be divided in accordance with s 112.
AYQ v AYR and another matterHigh CourtYes[2013] 1 SLR 476SingaporeCited for the principle that the weightage accorded to indirect contributions must remain constant in relation to each class of assets, since indirect contributions can only be assessed and applied at the end of the marriage.
Rosaline Singh v Jayabalan Samidurai (alias Jerome Jayabalan)High CourtYes[2004] 1 SLR(R) 457SingaporeCited for the principle that an order of maintenance under s 113 of the Women’s Charter supplements the order for the division of matrimonial assets.
Hoong Khai Soon v Cheng Kwee EngCourt of AppealYes[1993] 1 SLR(R) 823SingaporeCited for the principle that in a case where the documentary evidence falls short of establishing exactly who made what contribution and/or the exact amount of monetary contribution made by each party, the court must make a “rough and ready approximation” of the figures.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 112 of the Women’s CharterSingapore
s 113 of the Women’s CharterSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Matrimonial Assets
  • Classification Methodology
  • Global Assessment Methodology
  • Direct Contributions
  • Indirect Contributions
  • Quintessential Matrimonial Assets
  • Interim Judgment of Divorce
  • Care and Control
  • Access
  • Joint Custody

15.2 Keywords

  • divorce
  • matrimonial assets
  • child custody
  • maintenance
  • family law
  • singapore
  • women's charter

16. Subjects

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

17. Areas of Law

  • Family Law
  • Matrimonial Assets
  • Division of Matrimonial Assets
  • Maintenance
  • Custody
  • Access