WAS v WAT: Division of Matrimonial Assets in Divorce after 11-Year Marriage
In the case of WAS v WAT, before the Family Division of the High Court of Singapore, the court addressed the division of matrimonial assets following an 11-year marriage. The Interim Judgment of Divorce was granted on 23 March 2020. Disputes arose over the valuation of Property [X], Business [A], and several loan liabilities. The court accepted [GH]'s valuation of Business [A] and determined the net value of Property [X]. The court ordered a 65:35 division of matrimonial assets in favor of the Wife, resulting in the Wife's share being $1,025,029 and the Husband's share being $551,939.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court (Family Division)1.2 Outcome
Division of matrimonial assets ordered with a 65:35 split in favor of the Wife.
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court divides matrimonial assets in WAS v WAT divorce case, addressing disputes over property, business valuation, and loan liabilities. The court ordered a 65:35 split in favor of the wife.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Debbie Ong | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The parties were married on 31 July 2008 and the Husband filed for divorce on 15 January 2020.
- The marriage lasted about 11 years and the parties have no children.
- The parties jointly owned Property [X], which was bought in November 2011 and sold on 26 May 2021.
- The parties founded four companies together, collectively known as [A], and disputed the valuation of their shares.
- The Husband claimed a loan from his father for Property [X] was a debt, while the Wife claimed it was a gift.
- The Husband had a gambling addiction throughout the marriage, leading to debt.
- The Wife left her job in 2008 to accompany the Husband to his posting in the USA.
5. Formal Citations
- WAS v WAT, Divorce (Transferred) No 205 of 2020, [2022] SGHCF 7
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Parties married | |
| Parties bought Property [X] | |
| Parties moved into Property [X] | |
| Husband filed the Writ of Divorce | |
| Interim Judgment of Divorce granted | |
| Property [X] sold | |
| Completion of sale of Property [X] | |
| Ancillary matters heard | |
| Ancillary matters heard | |
| Judgment date | |
| Judgment date |
7. Legal Issues
- Division of Matrimonial Assets
- Outcome: The court ordered a 65:35 division of matrimonial assets in favor of the Wife.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Valuation of assets
- Direct contributions
- Indirect contributions
- Judicial Review of Valuation
- Outcome: The court found no basis to set aside the First GH Report and accepted [GH]'s valuation of the parties' shareholdings in [A].
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Deviation from terms of reference
- Patent or manifest error
- Bias of valuer
8. Remedies Sought
- Division of Matrimonial Assets
- Orders relating to the valuation and distribution of assets
9. Cause of Actions
- Divorce
- Division of Matrimonial Assets
10. Practice Areas
- Divorce
- Family Law
- Valuation Disputes
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BON and others v BOQ | High Court | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1370 | Singapore | Cited regarding the treatment of a listed creditor in an Affidavit of Assets and Means. |
| NK v NL | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 4 SLR 792 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a court can intervene if a court-appointed valuer does not act in accordance with his terms of reference, or if his valuation is patently or manifestly in error. |
| Viking Engineering Pte Ltd v Feen, Bjornar and others and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 78 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an expert determination may only be set aside if the expert materially departed from instructions, there was a manifest error in the expert’s determination that justly requires judicial intervention, or there was fraud, corruption, collusion, dishonesty, bad faith, bias, or the like. |
| ANJ v ANK | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 1043 | Singapore | Cited for the application of the broad-brush approach in dividing matrimonial assets. |
| USB v USA and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 588 | Singapore | Cited regarding the treatment of pre-marriage assets and the material gains of the marital partnership. |
| UZN v UZM | High Court | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 426 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an adverse inference may be drawn where there is a substratum of evidence that establishes a prima facie case against the person against whom the inference is to be drawn and that person must have had some particular access to the information he is said to be hiding. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Matrimonial assets
- Direct contributions
- Indirect contributions
- Valuation
- Court-appointed valuer
- Interim Judgment
- Affidavit of Assets and Means
- Joint Summary
15.2 Keywords
- Divorce
- Matrimonial Assets
- Division of Assets
- Family Law
- Singapore
- Valuation
- Property
- Business
- Loans
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Family Law | 95 |
| Matrimonial Assets | 95 |
| Wills and Probate | 5 |
| Contract Law | 5 |
16. Subjects
- Family Law
- Divorce
- Matrimonial Assets
- Valuation