TOT v TOU: Division of Matrimonial Assets and Wife's Maintenance in Divorce

In TOT v TOU, the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore heard cross-appeals regarding ancillary orders in a divorce case, specifically concerning the division of matrimonial assets and the wife's maintenance. The court dismissed the husband's application to adduce fresh evidence, adjusted the assessment of expenditure on the River Valley Property, and upheld the order for nominal maintenance of $1 per month for the wife. The court found no error of law or principle in the lower court's decision, except for the miscalculation regarding the River Valley Property.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Appellate Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed except in relation to the assessment of expenditure on the River Valley Property.

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Ex Tempore Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Cross-appeals concerning the division of matrimonial assets and wife's maintenance. The court adjusted the division of assets but upheld nominal maintenance.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
TOTAppellant, DefendantIndividualAppeal dismissed in partPartial
TOURespondent, Plaintiff, AppellantIndividualAppeal dismissed in partPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudge of the Appellate DivisionYes
Quentin LohJudge of the Appellate DivisionNo
Chua Lee MingJudge of the High CourtNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Lai Ying Ling JennyJenny Lai & Co
Lai Ying Mei JenniferJenny Lai & Co
Tay Siok Leng JosephineJosephine Tay & Co

4. Facts

  1. The Husband and Wife cross-appealed against the ancillary orders made by the High Court Judge.
  2. The challenges pertain to the division of matrimonial assets, the Wife’s maintenance, as well as the costs.
  3. The Husband brought an application to adduce fresh evidence in his appeal.
  4. The parties accept that the Judge made a mistake in deducting sums from the Husband’s estimate of expenditure on the River Valley Property.
  5. The Wife previously held a well-paying job but has not been able to secure permanent employment since her retrenchment in 2017.
  6. The Husband has many financial responsibilities, including the children’s expenses and the mortgage payments for two of the Joint Properties.

5. Formal Citations

  1. TOT v TOU and another appeal and another matter, Civil Appeal No 17 of 2021, [2021] SGHC(A) 9
  2. TOT v TOU and another appeal and another matter, Civil Appeal No 18 of 2021, [2021] SGHC(A) 9
  3. TOT v TOU and another appeal and another matter, Summons No 7 of 2021, [2021] SGHC(A) 9

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Divorce Petition filed
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Division of Matrimonial Assets
    • Outcome: The court adjusted the assessment of expenditure on the River Valley Property but otherwise upheld the Judge's findings.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2015] 4 SLR 1043
      • [2017] 1 SLR 609
      • [2020] 2 SLR 588
      • [2018] SGCA 78
      • [2017] 4 SLR 921
      • [2020] 1 SLR 551
      • [2015] SGCA 52
  2. Wife's Maintenance
    • Outcome: The court upheld the order for nominal maintenance of $1 per month for the wife.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Admissibility of Fresh Evidence
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the husband's application to adduce fresh evidence.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1954] 1 WLR 1489
      • [2021] SGCA 18
      • [2019] 2 SLR 341

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Division of Matrimonial Assets
  2. Wife's Maintenance
  3. Lump Sum Maintenance

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Divorce
  • Family Law
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
ANJ v ANKHigh CourtYes[2015] 4 SLR 1043SingaporeCited for the principle that appellate courts are slow to interfere with orders made by the court below in matrimonial cases unless there is an error of law or principle, or a failure to appreciate certain material facts.
TNL v TNK and another appeal and another matterHigh CourtYes[2017] 1 SLR 609SingaporeCited for the principle that appellate courts are slow to interfere with orders made by the court below in matrimonial cases unless there is an error of law or principle, or a failure to appreciate certain material facts.
USB v USA and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2020] 2 SLR 588SingaporeCited for the principle that appeals in matrimonial disputes will not be sympathetically received where the potential adjustment of sums awarded is less than 10%.
BOR v BOS and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2018] SGCA 78SingaporeCited for the principle that the Court of Appeal will correct computational errors in appropriate instances, particularly where both parties agree that such errors exist.
Ladd v MarshallNot AvailableYes[1954] 1 WLR 1489England and WalesCited for the conditions that must be satisfied in order for fresh evidence to be admitted on appeal.
UJN v UJOCourt of AppealYes[2021] SGCA 18SingaporeCited for the conditions that must be satisfied in order for fresh evidence to be admitted on appeal.
AnAn Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co)Court of AppealYes[2019] 2 SLR 341SingaporeCited regarding the application of the Ladd v Marshall rule.
UBM v UBNCourt of AppealYes[2017] 4 SLR 921SingaporeCited regarding inclination towards equal division in long dual-income marriages, but the court disagreed with the Judge's approach of adjusting the parties' average ratios after applying the ANJ v ANK framework.
UYQ v UYPCourt of AppealYes[2020] 1 SLR 551SingaporeCited for the principle that the court should not further adjust the parties’ average ratios after applying the ANJ v ANK framework, for the sole purpose of reaching an equal or a more equal division between the parties.
Twiss, Christopher James Hans v Twiss, Yvonne PrendergastCourt of AppealYes[2015] SGCA 52SingaporeCited for the principle that rental proceeds derived from renting out jointly-owned property ought to be considered as belonging jointly to the parties.
JBB v JBACourt of AppealYes[2015] 5 SLR 153SingaporeCited for the principle that the costs of the ancillaries is an issue that lies well within the discretion of the first instance judge.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Matrimonial Assets
  • Maintenance
  • Ancillary Orders
  • Contributions Ratio
  • Joint Properties
  • Nominal Maintenance
  • Fresh Evidence

15.2 Keywords

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

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Family Law95
Matrimonial Assets90
Maintenance (Wife)90
Division of Assets90
Child Custody50
Child Support50
Appellate Practice30
Civil Procedure30
Evidence20
Judgments and Orders20
Costs20

16. Subjects

  • Family Law
  • Divorce
  • Appeals
  • Civil Procedure