CLT v CLS: Division of Matrimonial Assets, Inter-Spousal Gifts, and Tracing of Shares in Divorce

In the divorce case of *CLT v CLS*, the High Court (Family Division) addressed the division of matrimonial assets following a 17-year marriage. The key issues involved the treatment of inter-spousal gifts and the tracing of shares in [LB] and [J] companies. The court included 175,000 [LB] shares and 50,000 [J] shares in the pool of matrimonial assets. Ultimately, the court ordered a 30:70 division of the matrimonial assets, valued at $53,485,931, in favor of the Husband, and declined to order maintenance for the Wife.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court (Family Division)

1.2 Outcome

Division of matrimonial assets ordered; 30% to Wife, 70% to Husband; no maintenance for Wife.

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Divorce case concerning the division of matrimonial assets, including treatment of inter-spousal gifts and tracing of shares. The court ordered a 30:70 division in favor of the Husband.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
CLSDefendant, AppellantIndividualDivision of matrimonial assets; 70% sharePartial
CLTPlaintiffIndividualDivision of matrimonial assets; 30% sharePartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Debbie OngJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Looi Min Yi StephanieOptimus Chambers LLC
Choh Thian Chee IrvingOptimus Chambers LLC
Oei Su-Ying Renee NicoletteOptimus Chambers LLC
Foo Siew FongHarry Elias Partnership LLP
Cheong Zhihui IvanHarry Elias Partnership LLP
Chew Wei EnHarry Elias Partnership LLP

4. Facts

  1. The Wife and Husband were married on 17 September 2001 and the Interim Judgment of Divorce was granted on 26 February 2019.
  2. The marriage lasted about 17 years and the parties have one child, [Q], who will be 19 years old in 2021.
  3. The Husband has another daughter, [R], aged 22, from a previous relationship who has lived in the parties’ household since 2005.
  4. The Wife is 49 years old and a homemaker who receives about $13,000 per month from rent and investments.
  5. The Husband is 68 years old and a retired businessman who earns about $233,530 per year, inclusive of rental income.
  6. The main dispute was over the Husband’s shares in two companies, [LB] and [J], which the Husband claimed were pre-marital gifts.
  7. The parties agreed on the values of all assets as listed in the Joint Summary save for the two cars, SKE XX18 P and SCM XX83 S.

5. Formal Citations

  1. CLT v CLS, Divorce (Transferred) No 3338 of 2018 and Registrar’s Appeal No 4 of 2020, [2021] SGHCF 29

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Parties married
Husband's daughter [R] from previous relationship lived in parties' household since 2005
Previous divorce proceedings discontinued
Previous divorce proceedings discontinued
Divorce writ filed by Wife
Interim Judgment of Divorce granted
Consent Order issued regarding custody, care and control, and access of Q
Joint Summary dated
Ancillary Matters hearing adjourned
Ancillary Matters hearing
Ancillary Matters hearing
Judgment date
Orders made for each party to bear their own cost for the ancillary matters
Parties heard on consequential orders
Grounds of Decision issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Division of Matrimonial Assets
    • Outcome: The court determined the pool of matrimonial assets and ordered a 30:70 division in favor of the Husband.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Valuation of assets
      • Inclusion of inter-spousal gifts
      • Tracing of pre-marital assets
    • Related Cases:
      • [2020] 2 SLR 588
      • [2020] SGCA 8
      • [2000] 1 SLR(R) 908
      • [2012] 4 SLR 785
      • [2012] 4 SLR 405
      • [2011] 2 SLR 1157
      • [2006] 1 SLR(R) 416
      • [2007] 3 SLR(R) 520
      • [2017] 1 SLR 609
      • [2018] SGCA 78
      • [2017] 4 SLR 921
      • [2020] SGHCF 16
      • [2007] 3 SLR(R) 743
      • [2017] SGHCF 23
      • [2021] 1 SLR 426
  2. Treatment of Inter-Spousal Gifts
    • Outcome: The court included inter-spousal gifts in the pool of matrimonial assets but considered the nature and context of the gifts when determining the division ratio.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2012] 4 SLR 785
      • [2012] 4 SLR 405
      • [2011] 2 SLR 1157
  3. Tracing of Pre-Marital Assets
    • Outcome: The court determined that the Husband failed to prove that his current shares in [J] were traceable to his original pre-marital shares.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2020] 2 SLR 588
  4. Dissipation of Assets
    • Outcome: The court did not find any evidence of wrongful dissipation of assets by the Husband.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2021] 1 SLR 426

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Division of Matrimonial Assets
  2. Maintenance for Wife
  3. Maintenance for Child

9. Cause of Actions

  • Divorce
  • Division of Matrimonial Assets

10. Practice Areas

  • Divorce
  • Family Law
  • Matrimonial Asset Division

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
USB v USA and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2020] 2 SLR 588SingaporeCited for the principle that the burden of proving an asset is not a matrimonial asset lies on the party asserting it.
TQU v TQTSingapore Court of AppealYes[2020] SGCA 8SingaporeCited for the principle that the burden falls on the party asserting that a pre-marital gift has been transformed into a matrimonial asset.
Ang Teng Siong v Lee Su MinHigh CourtYes[2000] 1 SLR(R) 908SingaporeCited for the principle that gifts received during the marriage are not matrimonial assets unless they are the matrimonial home or have been improved by the other party.
Tan Hwee Lee v Tan Cheng Guan and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2012] 4 SLR 785SingaporeCited for the principle that interspousal gifts are matrimonial assets but the nature and context of the gift can be considered for a just division.
Wan Lai Cheng v Quek Seow KeeCourt of AppealYes[2012] 4 SLR 405SingaporeCited for the principle that interspousal gifts are not 'gifts' for the purposes of s 112(10) of the Women's Charter and constitute matrimonial assets for division.
Yeo Chong Lin v Tay Ang Choo Nancy and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2011] 2 SLR 1157SingaporeCited for the principle that de minimis inter-spousal gifts need not be taken into account.
Wong Ser Wan v Ng Cheong LingHigh CourtNo[2006] 1 SLR(R) 416SingaporeCited regarding the 'inequity' exception, which has since been rejected by the Court of Appeal in Tan Hwee Lee.
Lock Yeng Fun v Chua Hock ChyeCourt of AppealYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 520SingaporeCited for the principle that matrimonial assets are treated as community property to be divided in accordance with s 112 of the Act.
TNL v TNK and another appeal and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2017] 1 SLR 609SingaporeCited for the principle that neither spouse is allowed to expend or transfer away substantial assets when divorce is imminent.
BOR v BOSCourt of AppealYes[2018] SGCA 78SingaporeCited for the trend in moderately lengthy marriages (15-18 years) to award the homemaker wife about 35% to 40% of the matrimonial assets.
UBM v UBNHigh CourtYes[2017] 4 SLR 921SingaporeCited for the definition of a 'Single-Income Marriage' as one where one party is primarily the breadwinner and the other is primarily the homemaker.
VIG v VIHHigh CourtNo[2020] SGHCF 16SingaporeCited as an example of a case with a large pool of matrimonial assets where the division favored the breadwinner husband.
NK v NLCourt of AppealYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 743SingaporeCited for the principle that the division of matrimonial assets is founded on the ideology of marriage as an equal co-operative partnership of efforts.
UFU v UFVHigh CourtNo[2017] SGHCF 23SingaporeCited by the Wife, but the court found it did not affect the present case because the ANJ approach was inapplicable.
UZN v UZMCourt of AppealYes[2021] 1 SLR 426SingaporeCited for the principle of wrongful dissipation of assets carried out with the intention of depleting the matrimonial pool.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 112 of the Women’s CharterSingapore
s 112(10) of the Women’s CharterSingapore
s 112(10)(a)(i) of the Women’s CharterSingapore
s 112(10)(a)(ii) of the Women’s CharterSingapore
s 112(2)(e) of the Women’s CharterSingapore
s 112(1) of the Women’s CharterSingapore
s 46(1) of the Women’s CharterSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Matrimonial Assets
  • Inter-Spousal Gifts
  • Tracing of Assets
  • Single-Income Marriage
  • Dissipation of Assets
  • Deed of Arrangement
  • Deferred Community of Property
  • [LB] Shares
  • [J] Shares
  • Property B
  • Property R1

15.2 Keywords

  • Divorce
  • Matrimonial Assets
  • Inter-Spousal Gifts
  • Division of Assets
  • Family Law
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Matrimonial Assets95
Family Law95
Division of Assets90
Divorce85
Matrimonial Assets Division80
Gifts70
Evidence Law50

16. Subjects

  • Family Law
  • Divorce
  • Matrimonial Assets
  • Inter-Spousal Gifts