VJP v VJQ: Division of Matrimonial Assets After Exclusion on Appeal
In VJP v VJQ, the Court of Appeal of Singapore addressed the division of matrimonial assets following a divorce in 2018. The wife appealed a High Court decision that excluded certain assets from the matrimonial pool without adjusting the division ratio set by the District Judge. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the division ratio should be recalculated based on the reduced asset pool, resulting in a revised distribution of 44.8:55.2 in favor of the husband. The court varied the order to reflect the adjusted shares.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal on division of matrimonial assets after excluding certain assets. Court of Appeal recomputed distribution based on reduced pool.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VJP | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | Low Hong Quan, Tan Hoe Shuen |
| VJQ | Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Oh Kim Heoh Mimi |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Chao Hick Tin | Senior Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Low Hong Quan | Silvester Legal LLC |
| Tan Hoe Shuen | Silvester Legal LLC |
| Oh Kim Heoh Mimi | Ethos Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- The appellant wife and the respondent husband were married for eight and a half years before they were divorced in 2018.
- The District Judge adopted the structured approach in ANJ v ANK in dividing the matrimonial assets.
- The High Court judge allowed both appeals in part and held that certain assets were to be excluded from the matrimonial pool.
- The Judge did not adjust the division ratio that the District Judge had arrived at.
- The Primefield shares were excluded from the matrimonial pool as they were probably worthless.
- The undisbursed loan amount of $176,250 for the Condominium was deducted from the matrimonial pool.
5. Formal Citations
- VJP v VJQ, Civil Appeal No 210 of 2020, [2021] SGCA 82
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Parties divorced | |
| Ancillary hearing in February 2020 | |
| $176,250 loan would only be disbursed in around May 2020 | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Division of Matrimonial Assets
- Outcome: The court held that the division ratio should be recalculated based on the reduced asset pool.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Recomputation of division ratio after exclusion of assets
- Valuation of matrimonial assets
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 4 SLR 1043
8. Remedies Sought
- Adjustment of division ratio of matrimonial assets
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Divorce
- Family Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANJ v ANK | High Court | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 1043 | Singapore | Cited for the structured approach in dividing matrimonial assets in dual-income marriages. |
| VJP v VJQ | District Court | Yes | [2020] SGFC 62 | Singapore | Refers to the District Judge’s decision on the division of matrimonial assets. |
| VJQ v VJP and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHCF 13 | Singapore | Refers to the High Court judge’s decision on the cross-appeals against the District Judge’s decision. |
| TNL v TNK and another appeal and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 609 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish between dual-income and single-income marriages in the context of matrimonial asset division. |
| TND v TNC and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] SGCA 34 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the court recomputed the division ratio after deducting certain assets. |
| TQU v TQT | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 8 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the court recomputed the division ratio after deducting certain assets. |
| UJN v UJO | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 39 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the court did not recompute the division ratio in a single-income marriage. |
| Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai Huah | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] SGCA 21 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will be slow to make minor adjustments for idiosyncratic reasons. |
| Lock Yeng Fun v Chua Hock Chye | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 520 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will only interfere with a trial judge’s exercise of discretion in exceptional circumstances. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Matrimonial assets
- Division ratio
- ANJ approach
- Direct contributions
- Indirect contributions
- Dual-income marriage
- Primefield shares
- Undisbursed loan
15.2 Keywords
- matrimonial assets
- division
- appeal
- family law
- divorce
16. Subjects
- Family Law
- Matrimonial Assets
- Appeals
17. Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Matrimonial Assets
- Division of Matrimonial Assets