UJN v UJO: Division of Matrimonial Assets in Divorce Proceedings

In a family law dispute before the Court of Appeal of Singapore, UJN appealed against the decision of the court below regarding the division of matrimonial assets following a divorce from UJO. The husband, UJN, filed an application to adduce further evidence related to a bonus payment, properties in New York and London, and a valuation report for a property in Loyang. The court allowed the application in part, specifically regarding the bonus payment evidence, and dismissed it for the other two categories. The court granted the wife 70% of the costs of the application.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application allowed in part and dismissed in part.

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding the division of matrimonial assets. The court allowed the husband to adduce further evidence related to a bonus payment.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
UJNAppellant, PlaintiffIndividualApplication allowed in partPartial
UJORespondent, DefendantIndividualApplication dismissed in partPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudge of the Appellate DivisionYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Vathany RaveentheranGodwin Campos LLC
Godwin Gilbert CamposGodwin Campos LLC
Chai Li Li DorothyDCMO Law Practice LLC

4. Facts

  1. The husband appealed a decision regarding the division of matrimonial assets.
  2. The husband sought to introduce new evidence related to a bonus, properties, and a valuation report.
  3. The judge below drew an adverse inference against the husband for non-disclosure of US$1.5m bonus.
  4. The husband claimed a substantial part of the US$1.5m bonus was deposited into the parties’ joint account.
  5. The husband is a joint owner of properties in New York and London.
  6. The judge valued the Loyang Property at $6m as at the date of interim judgment.
  7. The husband complained that the judge’s valuation was arbitrary.

5. Formal Citations

  1. UJN v UJO, Civil Appeal No 172 of 2020 (Summons No 5 of 2021), [2021] SGCA 18

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Judge delivered judgment in respect of ancillary matters.
Husband filed an appeal against the judge’s decision in respect of the division of matrimonial assets.
Letter from DBS Bank Ltd to the husband setting out details of three fund transfers from the POSB a/c on 27 March 2015.
Husband filed CA/SUM 5 of 2021 for leave to adduce further evidence for the main appeal.
Court allowed the Application in respect of the Category A documents and dismissed it in respect of the other two categories.
Deposit of $1,496,572.85 was made into joint account.
Three fund transfers from the POSB a/c.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Admissibility of Fresh Evidence on Appeal
    • Outcome: The court allowed the husband to adduce further evidence related to a bonus payment but dismissed the application for other evidence.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Reasonable diligence in obtaining evidence
      • Probative influence of evidence
      • Credibility of evidence
  2. Division of Matrimonial Assets
    • Outcome: The court considered the husband's interest in properties in New York and London and a property in Loyang when determining the division of matrimonial assets.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Leave to adduce further evidence
  2. Reconsideration of division of matrimonial assets

9. Cause of Actions

  • Appeal against decision on ancillary matters in divorce proceedings

10. Practice Areas

  • Divorce
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Ladd v MarshallN/AYes[1954] 1 WLR 1489N/ACited for the three requirements to allow fresh evidence.
Anan Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co)N/ANo[2019] 2 SLR 341SingaporeCited for propositions on whether the Ladd v Marshall requirements should apply with full rigour.
JWR Pte Ltd v Edmond Pereira Law Corp and anotherN/ANo[2020] 2 SLR 744SingaporeCited regarding running a contrary case on appeal is an abuse of process.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed)
Family Justice Rules 2014 (S 813/2014)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Matrimonial assets
  • Fresh evidence
  • Special grounds
  • Reasonable diligence
  • Probative evidence
  • Interim judgment
  • Valuation
  • Bonus
  • Joint account
  • Statutory declaration

15.2 Keywords

  • matrimonial assets
  • divorce
  • appeal
  • fresh evidence
  • Singapore
  • family law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Matrimonial Assets95
Family Law95
Division90
Appeal80
Evidence Law60
Civil Procedure50
Costs30
Contract Law20

16. Subjects

  • Family Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Evidence