VJR v VJS: Appeal on Division of Matrimonial Assets Involving Inherited Shares
In VJR v VJS, before the Family Division of the High Court of Singapore, the appellant husband appealed against the District Judge's decision regarding the division of matrimonial assets. The primary legal issue was whether certain assets, specifically shares, should be excluded from the matrimonial pool because they were acquired with money inherited from the husband's late wife. The court partially allowed the appeal, deducting a portion of the shares' value from the matrimonial pool but upholding the District Judge's order regarding the division ratio.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Family Justice Courts of the republic of singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal concerning the division of matrimonial assets, focusing on whether shares acquired with inherited money should be excluded. The court partially allowed the appeal, deducting a portion of the shares' value.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VJR | Appellant | Individual | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | Khoo Meixin Clarisse, Khoo Ming Sang Kenny |
| VJS | Respondent | Individual | Order upheld | Neutral | Ho Kin Onn |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Choo Han Teck | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Khoo Meixin Clarisse | Ascentsia Law Corporation |
| Khoo Ming Sang Kenny | Ascentsia Law Corporation |
| Ho Kin Onn | Hoh Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- The husband and wife were married on 6 October 2013 and have one son, born on 25 October 2014.
- The husband filed for divorce on 6 September 2018, and an Interim Judgment was granted on 22 May 2019.
- The husband sought to exclude certain assets (Shares, Son’s Monies, Investment Funds Monies) from the matrimonial pool, claiming they were inherited from his late wife.
- The District Judge included the Shares in the matrimonial pool, rejected the exclusion of the Son’s Monies and Investment Funds Monies, and drew an adverse inference against the husband.
- The husband appealed, seeking to adduce further evidence to show that the Disputed Assets should be excluded from the matrimonial pool.
- The husband commingled the inherited money with his own funds in his POSB account.
- The husband failed to make full and frank disclosure regarding his ICBC bank account and Standard Chartered bank account.
5. Formal Citations
- VJR v VJS, District Court Appeal No 51 of 2020, [2021] SGHCF 10
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Husband and wife were married | |
| Son born from the parties’ marriage | |
| Husband filed for divorce | |
| Interim Judgment was granted | |
| Decision of the District Judge made concerning the division of the matrimonial assets | |
| Grounds of Decision dated | |
| Summons No 275 of 2020 adjourned to be heard together with the main appeal | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment |
7. Legal Issues
- Division of Matrimonial Assets
- Outcome: The court partially allowed the appeal, deducting a portion of the shares' value from the matrimonial pool.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Exclusion of inherited assets from matrimonial pool
- Commingling of assets
- Full and frank disclosure
- Related Cases:
- [2020] 3 SLR 683
- [2005] SGCA 4
- Admissibility of Fresh Evidence on Appeal
- Outcome: The court applied the Ladd v Marshall criteria and allowed the admission of additional evidence related to the Shares.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Reasonable diligence in obtaining evidence
- Influence of evidence on outcome
- Related Cases:
- [1954] 1 WLR 1489
- [2011] 1 SLR 1235
- [2021] SGCA 18
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against the decision of the District Judge
- Exclusion of certain assets from the matrimonial pool
- Revision of the division ratio of matrimonial assets
9. Cause of Actions
- Divorce
- Division of Matrimonial Assets
10. Practice Areas
- Divorce
- Family Law
- Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACU v ACR | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 1235 | Singapore | Cited regarding the relevance and importance of fresh evidence in influencing the outcome of the appeal. |
| Ladd v Marshall | N/A | Yes | [1954] 1 WLR 1489 | N/A | Cited for the criteria for admitting fresh evidence on appeal. |
| UJN v UJO | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 18 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation that the criteria set out in Ladd v Marshall would apply to the present case. |
| Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa and Others | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] SGCA 4 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if trust monies and personal monies are mixed, the law assumes the whole is subject to the trust, absent proper accounting. |
| UYP v UYQ | N/A | Yes | [2020] 3 SLR 683 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principle that inheritance sums are not deducted from matrimonial assets if commingled and intended for family use. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Women’s Charter | Singapore |
| Section 112(10) of the Women’s Charter | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Matrimonial assets
- Inherited assets
- Commingling of assets
- Full and frank disclosure
- Admissibility of evidence
- Reasonable diligence
- Adverse inference
15.2 Keywords
- matrimonial assets
- division of assets
- divorce
- family law
- inheritance
- appeal
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Family Law
- Divorce
- Matrimonial Assets
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Matrimonial Assets
- Division of Matrimonial Assets
- Civil Procedure