BOR v BOS: Division of Matrimonial Assets & Child Maintenance Dispute

In the divorce case of *BOR v BOS*, the Singapore Court of Appeal heard appeals regarding the division of matrimonial assets and maintenance for the wife and children. The court found errors in the High Court Judge's calculations, adjusted the asset division, and ordered the husband to pay a lump sum for the children's maintenance. The court partially allowed both appeals, emphasizing the need for counsel to assist the court in complex matrimonial litigation.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeals allowed in part.

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Divorce case concerning division of matrimonial assets and child maintenance. The Court of Appeal partially allowed the appeals, adjusting asset division and ordering lump sum maintenance.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
BORAppellant, PlaintiffIndividualAppeal allowed in partPartial
BOSRespondent, DefendantIndividualAppeal allowed in partPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Steven ChongJudge of AppealYes
Belinda AngJudgeNo
Quentin LohJudgeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Audrey Liaw Shu JuanPY Legal LLC
Yee May Kuen Peggy SarahPY Legal LLC
Valencia Soh Ywee XianPY Legal LLC
Chew Wei EnEversheds Harry Elias LLP
Koh Tien HuaEversheds Harry Elias LLP

4. Facts

  1. The parties were married on 10 October 2001 and have two sons.
  2. The husband relocated to China for work in January 2008 and has resided there since.
  3. The wife commenced divorce proceedings on 11 April 2012 based on separation.
  4. The wife admitted to receiving bonds worth at least S$11,000,000 from the husband between June 2008 and November 2011.
  5. The judge found the wife's claimed monthly expenditure of S$55,320 on herself and S$25,000 on the sons to be grossly excessive.
  6. The judge found that S$6,500,000 of the bonds received by the wife was unaccounted for.
  7. The judge ordered the husband to pay the wife S$18,000 and monthly maintenance of S$3,500 for each child.

5. Formal Citations

  1. BOR v BOS and another appeal, , [2018] SGCA 78
  2. BOR v BOS, Civil Appeal No 215 of 2017, Civil Appeal No 215 of 2017
  3. BOS v BOR, Civil Appeal No 223 of 2017, Civil Appeal No 223 of 2017

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Parties married
Husband relocated to China
Wife commenced divorce proceedings
Interim judgment granted
Ancillary matters heard
Ancillary matters heard
Oral judgment delivered
Judgment reserved
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Division of Matrimonial Assets
    • Outcome: The court adjusted the division of matrimonial assets, finding errors in the lower court's calculations and considering the length of the marriage and contributions of each party.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Valuation of assets
      • Dissipation of assets
      • Appropriate ratio of division
    • Related Cases:
      • [2017] 1 SLR 609
      • [2015] 5 SLR 1043
  2. Maintenance for Wife
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the wife's appeal for maintenance, finding that her share of the matrimonial assets was sufficient for her future maintenance.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2016] SGCA 2
      • [2012] 2 SLR 506
  3. Maintenance for Children
    • Outcome: The court ordered the husband to pay a lump sum for the children's maintenance, considering his history of default and the difficulty of enforcing monthly payments.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2014] 4 SLR 559
  4. Adverse Inferences
    • Outcome: The court drew adverse inferences against the husband for failing to account for certain withdrawals and proceeds from sales of assets.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2007] SGCA 21
      • [2014] SGHC 110

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Division of Matrimonial Assets
  2. Maintenance for Wife
  3. Maintenance for Children

9. Cause of Actions

  • Divorce
  • Division of Matrimonial Assets
  • Maintenance

10. Practice Areas

  • Divorce
  • Family Law
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
TNL v TNK and another appeal and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2017] 1 SLR 609SingaporeAffirmed the principle that the court would not readily interfere with orders made by a court below pertaining to the division of matrimonial assets.
ANJ v ANKHigh CourtYes[2015] 5 SLR 1043SingaporeCited regarding the structured approach to division of matrimonial assets in single income marriages, but not applied in this case.
Grace Electrical Engineering Pte Ltd v Te Deum Engineering Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2018] 1 SLR 76SingaporeCited for the principle that the court would carefully consider whether to grant leave to an appellant to introduce new and even contradictory points on appeal.
Yeo Chong Lin v Tay Ang Choo Nancy and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2011] 2 SLR 1157SingaporeCited regarding the appropriateness in adopting a broad-brush approach for the division of matrimonial assets.
Chan Tin Sun v Fong Quay SimCourt of AppealYes[2015] 2 SLR 195SingaporeCited regarding drawing an adverse inference that a party received a sum but has failed to disclose it.
Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai HuahCourt of AppealYes[2007] SGCA 21SingaporeCited for the principle that the court should not draw an adverse inference unless certain conditions are met.
Tan Yen Chuan (m.w.) v Lim Theam SiewHigh CourtYes[2014] SGHC 110SingaporeCited regarding withdrawals of money which may legitimately be explained as personal expenditures should generally be disregarded.
Ladd v MarshallNot AvailableYes[1954] 1 WLR 1489England and WalesCited for the requirements for adducing further evidence.
Mykytowych, Pamela Jane v V I P HotelCourt of AppealYes[2016] 4 SLR 829SingaporeCited for the requirements for adducing further evidence.
ATT v ATSCourt of AppealYes[2012] 2 SLR 859SingaporeObserved that the trend in moderately lengthy marriages was towards awarding the homemaker wife about 35% to 40% of the matrimonial assets.
UGG v UGH (m.w.)High CourtYes[2017] SGHCF 25SingaporeInvolved a marriage of 12 and a half years, a Wife who had made minimal direct financial contributions was awarded 31.35% of the pool of matrimonial assets.
ABX v ABY and othersHigh CourtYes[2014] 2 SLR 969SingaporeInvolved a marriage of nine years, the homemaker wife was awarded 25% of the pool of the matrimonial assets.
UAP v UAQCourt of AppealYes[2018] 3 SLR 319SingaporeCited regarding the wife having full access to the joint account statements.
ATE v ATD and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2016] SGCA 2SingaporeCourts regularly take into account each party’s share of the matrimonial assets when assessing the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be ordered.
Foo Ah Yan v Chiam Heng ChowCourt of AppealYes[2012] 2 SLR 506SingaporeCourts regularly take into account each party’s share of the matrimonial assets when assessing the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be ordered.
AYM v AYL and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2014] 4 SLR 559SingaporeLump sum payments may be especially suitable where there is reason to believe that defaults may be likely.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Matrimonial Assets
  • Bonds
  • Maintenance
  • Dissipation of Assets
  • Adverse Inference
  • Lump Sum Payment
  • Homemaker
  • Single-Income Marriage

15.2 Keywords

  • Divorce
  • Matrimonial Assets
  • Maintenance
  • Singapore
  • Family Law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Family Law95
Maintenance90
Matrimonial Assets90
Appeal50
Civil Procedure30
Evidence20

16. Subjects

  • Family Law
  • Divorce
  • Matrimonial Assets
  • Child Maintenance