UTJ v UTK: Division of Matrimonial Assets & Wife Maintenance in Divorce

In the Family Justice Courts of Singapore, the divorce case of *UTJ v UTK* was heard before Tan Puay Boon JC, concerning the division of matrimonial assets and maintenance for the wife. The Plaintiff (Wife) initiated divorce proceedings in November 2011, and Interim Judgment was granted on May 29, 2015, dissolving the marriage based on both parties' unreasonable behavior. The court determined the division of matrimonial assets, valuing the total pool at $21,239,423.02, and denied the wife's claim for maintenance, considering her substantial share of the assets.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Family Justice Courts of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Matrimonial assets divided; wife's maintenance claim denied.

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Divorce case involving division of matrimonial assets and wife maintenance. The court determined the asset division and denied wife maintenance.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
UTJPlaintiffIndividualDivision of Matrimonial AssetsPartial
UTKDefendantIndividualDivision of Matrimonial AssetsPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Puay BoonJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Sivanathan Wijaya RavanaR. S. Wijaya & Co
Kee Lay LianRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Ada ChuaRajah & Tann Singapore LLP

4. Facts

  1. The parties registered their marriage in Singapore in late 1974.
  2. The Plaintiff (Wife) commenced divorce proceedings against the Defendant (Husband) on 2 November 2011.
  3. Interim Judgment was granted on 29 May 2015 to dissolve the marriage.
  4. The contested ancillary matters are the division of matrimonial assets and the maintenance of the wife.
  5. The total value of those assets which were agreed to be matrimonial assets, where there were also agreed valuations, was $2,256,667.53.
  6. The court appointed valuer valued the Jalan J Property at $3,350,000 as at 28 June 2018.
  7. The same court appointed valuer valued the Jalan B Property at $4,200,000 as at 28 June 2018.

5. Formal Citations

  1. UTJ v UTK, HCF/Divorce (Transferred) No 5269 of 2011, [2019] SGHCF 6

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Marriage registered
Son born
Purchase of current matrimonial home at Jalan J Property
Husband moved out of Parties’ bedroom at the Jalan J Property
Parties moved to the Son’s matrimonial home at Jalan B Property
Wife retired as a teacher
Husband moved back to their matrimonial home
Husband bought the Race Course Road Property
Husband sold the Race Course Road Property
Wife decided to end the marriage
Husband purchased the Johore Property
Divorce proceedings commenced
Interim Judgment granted to dissolve the marriage
Wife's application for interim maintenance
Husband ordered to pay Wife interim maintenance of $2,000 per month
Hearing for the ancillary matters took place
Hearing for the ancillary matters took place

7. Legal Issues

  1. Division of Matrimonial Assets
    • Outcome: The court determined the division of matrimonial assets, valuing the total pool at $21,239,423.02, with the Wife receiving $8,070,980.75 and the Husband receiving $13,168,442.27.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Maintenance of Wife
    • Outcome: The court denied the wife's claim for maintenance, considering her substantial share of the matrimonial assets.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Division of Matrimonial Assets
  2. Maintenance of Wife

9. Cause of Actions

  • Unreasonable Behaviour

10. Practice Areas

  • Divorce
  • Family Law
  • Matrimonial Assets

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
NK v NLCourt of AppealYes[2007] 3 SLR 743SingaporeCited for the methodologies applied in the case law in the division of matrimonial assets – the global assessment methodology and the classification methodology.
Yeo Chong Lin v Tay Ang Choo NancyCourt of AppealYes[2011] 2 SLR 1157SingaporeCited for the principle that the value of a matrimonial asset must be assessed as at the date of the hearing.
TND v TNCCourt of AppealYes[2017] SGCA 34SingaporeCited for endorsing the approach that the value of a matrimonial asset must be assessed as at the date of the hearing.
TDT v TDSHigh CourtYes[2016] 4 SLR 145SingaporeCited to show that the rule that the value of a matrimonial asset must be assessed as at the date of the hearing is not a hard and fast rule.
UDA v UDB and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2018] 1 SLR 1015SingaporeCited for the options available to the court and the spouses when an asset legally owned by a third party is alleged by one or both spouses to belong beneficially to them.
Ong Boon Huat Samuel v Chan Mei Lan KristineCourt of AppealYes[2007] SLR(R) 729SingaporeCited for the principle that the court can exercise its discretionary power to exclude a property acquired during the marriage from the pool of matrimonial assets where there is good reason to do so.
TNC v TNDHigh CourtYes[2016] 3 SLR 1172SingaporeCited regarding the classification approach would be appropriate where there were multiple classes of assets to which the parties had made different contributions and some assets were not wholly the gains of the co-operative partnership of efforts that the marriage represented.
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.
NK v NLCourt of AppealYes[2010] 4 SLR 792SingaporeCited for the principle that a court could intervene if a court-appointed valuer does not act in accordance with his terms of reference, or if his valuation was patently or manifestly in error.
TNL v TNKCourt of AppealYes[2017] 1 SLR 609SingaporeCited for the principle that when divorce proceedings are imminent, substantial expenditures incurred by one spouse, whether by gift or otherwise, without the consent of the other spouse should be returned to the asset pool.
ANJ v ANKCourt of AppealYes[2015] 4 SLR 1043SingaporeCited for the structured approach for the division of matrimonial assets.
TIT v TIUHigh CourtYes[2016] 3 SLR 1137SingaporeCited for the structured approach for the division of matrimonial assets.
TNC v TNDHigh Court (Family Division)Yes[2016] SGHCF 9SingaporeCited for the classification approach would be appropriate where there were multiple classes of assets to which the parties had made different contributions and some assets were not wholly the gains of the co-operative partnership of efforts that the marriage represented.
AYQ v AYRHigh CourtYes[2013] 1 SLR 476SingaporeCited for the principle that indirect contributions are applied across the board to all classes of assets in any event.
TEG v TEH and another matterHigh Court (Family Division)Yes[2015] SGHCF 8SingaporeCited as a guide for determining the ratio of indirect contributions in a marriage of substantial length.
Lee Siew Choo v Ling Chin ThorHigh CourtYes[2014] SGHC 185SingaporeCited as a guide for determining the ratio of indirect contributions in a marriage of substantial length.
TPY v TPZ and another appealHigh Court (Family Division)Yes[2017] SGHCF 2SingaporeCited as a guide for determining the ratio of indirect contributions in a marriage of substantial length.
BG v BFCourt of AppealYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 233SingaporeCited for the general duty owed by parties to the court to make full and frank disclosure of all relevant information within his or her knowledge.
Koh Kim Lan Angela v Choong Kian HawHigh CourtYes[1993] 3 SLR(R) 491SingaporeCited in the context of matrimonial proceedings, the lack of full and frank disclosure is normally argued in the context of one party not disclosing his or her assets.
Tay Long Kee Impex Pte Ltd v Tan Beng Huwah (trading as Sin Kwang Wah)Court of AppealYes[2000] 1 SLR(R) 786SingaporeCited for guidance on what “material facts” are.
TYS v TYTHigh CourtYes[2017] 5 SLR 244SingaporeCited for the uplift approach to address the adverse inference because it was not practicable to come to a finite sum for the Husband’s non-disclosure.
Au Kin Chung v Ho Kit JooHigh CourtYes[2007] SGHC 150SingaporeCited for the High Court upholding the decision of the district judge who increased the wife’s share from 50% to 70% on account of husband’s failure to give full and frank disclosure of his assets.
Chan Pui Yin v Lim Tiong KeiHigh CourtYes[2011] 4 SLR 875SingaporeCited for the wife being awarded a further 10% of the value of the disclosed assets of $10.95m.
ATE v ATDCourt of AppealYes[2016] SGCA 2SingaporeCited for the Court’s power to order maintenance is supplementary to its power to divide matrimonial assets.
Wan Lai Cheng v Quek Seow KeeCourt of AppealYes[2012] 4 SLR 405SingaporeCited 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 PooCourt of AppealYes[1993] 2 SLR(R) 545SingaporeCited for the method of quantifying an appropriate multiplier for a lump sum maintenance award.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Women’s Charter (Cap 353)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Matrimonial Assets
  • Interim Judgment
  • Ancillary Matters
  • Division of Assets
  • Maintenance
  • Global Assessment Methodology
  • Classification Methodology
  • Direct Contributions
  • Indirect Contributions
  • Average Ratio

15.2 Keywords

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

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Divorce95
Family Law95
Matrimonial Assets95
Division of Matrimonial Property95
Maintenance90
Maintenance (Wife)90
Civil Procedure30
Evidence20

16. Subjects

  • Family Law
  • Divorce
  • Matrimonial Assets
  • Maintenance