WGE v WGF: Division of Matrimonial Assets & Wife's Maintenance Appeal - Indirect Contributions, Valuation of Shares, Family Law

In WGE v WGF, before the General Division of the High Court (Family Division) of Singapore, the Wife, WGE, appealed against the District Judge's decision regarding the division of matrimonial assets and maintenance following divorce proceedings commenced on 2021-01-22. The court, presided over by Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi J, partially allowed the appeal, adjusting the valuation of MS shares and the assessment of indirect contributions, leading to a revised asset division ratio. The court dismissed the appeal regarding KS shares, maintenance amount, and child maintenance contributions.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court (Family Division)

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed in Part

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding division of matrimonial assets, valuation of shares, and maintenance for wife and child. High Court adjusts asset division and indirect contributions.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
WGEAppellantIndividualAppeal Allowed in PartPartial
WGFRespondentIndividualAppeal Partially UnsuccessfulPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Mavis Chionh Sze ChyiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Chong Siew Nyuk JosephineJosephine Chong LLC
Kym Calista AnsteyJosephine Chong LLC
Johnson Loo Teck LeeDrew & Napier LLC
Lew Zi QiDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. The Wife and Husband were married on 2010-09-26 and have one child.
  2. The Wife commenced divorce proceedings on 2021-01-22.
  3. The interim judgment was granted on 2021-03-24.
  4. The District Judge valued the matrimonial assets as at 2022-08-17.
  5. The District Judge found the total pool of matrimonial assets available for division was $2,673,518.45.
  6. The District Judge apportioned the parties’ direct financial contribution in the ratio of 88:12 in favour of the Husband.
  7. The District Judge apportioned the parties’ indirect contributions in the ratio of 52:48 in favour of the Wife.

5. Formal Citations

  1. WGE v WGF, District Court Appeal No 83 of 2022, [2023] SGHCF 26

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Wife and Husband were married
Wife commenced divorce proceedings
Interim judgment was granted
Consent order regarding child-related issues
Ancillary Matters hearing date
Judgment reserved
Judgment reserved
Judgment delivered

7. Legal Issues

  1. Division of Matrimonial Assets
    • Outcome: The court adjusted the valuation of MS shares and the assessment of indirect contributions, leading to a revised asset division ratio.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Appropriate indirect contributions ratio to be assigned to homemaker wife
      • Homemaking efforts not leading to substantial improvement of a company’s shares
      • Valuation of shares
      • Exclusion of assets from matrimonial pool
  2. Valuation of Shares
    • Outcome: The court determined the appropriate methodology for valuing the MS shares, including the application of discounts for lack of marketability and control.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Whether discounts for lack of marketability and for lack of control were warranted under the market approach on the facts
      • Appropriate value of discounts to be applied for lack of marketability and for lack of control on the facts
  3. Maintenance for Wife
    • Outcome: The court upheld the District Judge's award of lump sum maintenance of S$33,600.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Appropriate multiplicand and multiplier to be applied on the facts
  4. Maintenance for Child
    • Outcome: The court upheld the District Judge's decision to award S$1,732 for D’s monthly expenses and in ordering the Husband to bear 90% thereof instead of 100%.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Larger share of matrimonial assets
  2. Increased maintenance for wife
  3. Husband to bear 100% of child's monthly expenses

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Divorce
  • Ancillary Matters
  • Family Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Nambu PVD Pte Ltd v UBTS Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2022] 1 SLR 391SingaporeCited for the principle that appellate intervention in findings of fact is warranted only when the trial judge's assessment is plainly wrong.
Tat Seng Machine Movers Pte Ltd v Orix Leasing Singapore LtdCourt of AppealYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 1101SingaporeCited for the principle that appellate intervention in respect of findings of fact made by a trial judge is warranted only when the trial judge’s assessment is plainly wrong or manifestly against the weight of the evidence.
Tuitiongenius Pte Ltd v Toh Yew Keat and anotherHigh CourtYes[2021] 1 SLR 231SingaporeCited for the principle that appellate intervention in respect of findings of fact made by a trial judge is warranted only when the trial judge’s assessment is plainly wrong or manifestly against the weight of the evidence.
Simpson Marine (SEA) Pte Ltd v Jiacipto JiaravanonCourt of AppealYes[2019] 1 SLR 696SingaporeCited for the principle that appellate intervention in respect of findings of fact made by a trial judge is warranted only when the trial judge’s assessment is plainly wrong or manifestly against the weight of the evidence.
North Star (S) Capital Pte Ltd v Yip Fook MengCourt of AppealYes[2022] 1 SLR 677SingaporeCited for the principle that appellate intervention in respect of findings of fact made by a trial judge is warranted only when the trial judge’s assessment is plainly wrong or manifestly against the weight of the evidence.
Ng Eng Ghee and others v Mamata Kapildev Dave and others (Horizon Partners Pte Ltd, intervener) and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2009] 3 SLR(R) 109SingaporeCited for listing various types of errors of law.
Mu Qi and another v Management Corporation Strata Plan No 1849High CourtYes[2021] 5 SLR 1401SingaporeCited for listing various types of errors of law.
USB v USACourt of AppealYes[2020] 2 SLR 588SingaporeCited for the definition of 'substantial improvement' of assets in the context of matrimonial asset division.
Hoong Khai Soon v Cheng Kwee EngCourt of AppealNo[1993] 1 SLR(R) 823SingaporeCited regarding indirect contributions and substantial improvement of assets, but distinguished on the facts.
Chen Siew Hwee v Low Kee GuanHigh CourtNo[2006] 4 SLR(R) 605SingaporeCited regarding indirect contributions and substantial improvement of assets, but distinguished on the facts.
Liew Kit Fah and others v Koh Keng Chew and othersCourt of AppealYes[2020] 1 SLR 275SingaporeCited for the definitions of discount for lack of marketability (DLOM) and discount for lack of control (DLOC) in share valuation.
Thio Syn Kym Wendy v Thio Syn Pyn and anotherHigh CourtYes[2018] SGHC 54SingaporeCited for the definitions of discount for lack of marketability (DLOM) and discount for lack of control (DLOC) in share valuation.
Re Blue Index Ltd; Murrell v SwallowHigh Court of JusticeYes[2014] EWHC 2680 (Ch)England and WalesCited for the definitions of discount for lack of marketability (DLOM) and discount for lack of control (DLOC) in share valuation.
TDT v TDS and another appeal and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2016] 4 SLR 145SingaporeCited for the principle that matrimonial assets should be valued as at the date of the ancillary matters hearing.
WAS v WATHigh Court (Family Division)Yes[2022] SGHCF 7SingaporeCited for the principle that matrimonial assets should be valued as at the date of the ancillary matters hearing.
VTU v VTVHigh Court (Family Division)Yes[2022] SGHCF 23SingaporeCited for the principle that matrimonial assets should be valued as at the date of the ancillary matters hearing.
VOW v VOVHigh Court (Family Division)Yes[2023] SGHCF 9SingaporeCited for the principle that matrimonial assets should be valued as at the date of the ancillary matters hearing.
Yeo Chong Lin v Tay Ang Choo Nancy and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2011] 2 SLR 1157SingaporeCited for the principle that once an asset is regarded as a matrimonial asset to be divided, then for the purposes of determining its value, it must be assessed as at the date of the hearing.
Kiri Industries Ltd v Senda International Capital Ltd and another and other appeals and other mattersCourt of AppealYes[2022] SGCA(I) 5SingaporeCited for the principle that lack of marketability would be industry specific and best left to the expertise of an independent valuer.
Chong Barbara v Commissioner of Estate DutiesHigh CourtYes[2005] 4 SLR(R) 771SingaporeCited for the principle that the cost approach should only be used to value companies that have readily realisable assets with a value independent of business.
TNL v TNK and another appeal and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2017] 1 SLR 609SingaporeCited for the principle that the broad-brush approach was to be adopted with particular vigour by the court in assessing parties’ indirect contributions.
ANJ v ANKHigh CourtYes[2015] 4 SLR 1043SingaporeCited regarding the structured approach to division of matrimonial assets.
Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai HuahCourt of AppealYes[2007] SGCA 21SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court will seldom interfere in the orders made by the court below unless the court below has committed an error of law or failed to appreciate certain facts.
UYQ v UYPCourt of AppealYes[2020] 1 SLR 551SingaporeCited for the principle that courts should discourage parties from applying the ANJ approach in a rigid and calculative manner.
TIT v TIU and another appealHigh CourtYes[2016] 3 SLR 1137SingaporeIllustrates the courts’ approach to the determination of the appropriate indirect contributions ratio under the ANJ approach.
UAP v UAQHigh CourtYes[2018] 3 SLR 319SingaporeIllustrates the courts’ approach to the determination of the appropriate indirect contributions ratio under the ANJ approach.
TUV v TUWHigh Court (Family Division)Yes[2016] SGHCF 15SingaporeIllustrates the courts’ approach to the determination of the appropriate indirect contributions ratio under the ANJ approach.
BNS v BNTHigh CourtYes[2017] 4 SLR 213SingaporeIllustrates the courts’ approach to the determination of the appropriate indirect contributions ratio under the ANJ approach.
TYS v TYTHigh CourtYes[2017] 5 SLR 244SingaporeIllustrates the courts’ approach to the determination of the appropriate indirect contributions ratio under the ANJ approach.
UZM v UZNHigh Court (Family Division)Yes[2019] SGHCF 26SingaporeIllustrates the courts’ approach to the determination of the appropriate indirect contributions ratio under the ANJ approach.
UWL v UWMHigh CourtYes[2021] 5 SLR 1012SingaporeIllustrates the courts’ approach to the determination of the appropriate indirect contributions ratio under the ANJ approach.
Ong Chen Leng v Tan Sau PooCourt of AppealYes[1993] 2 SLR(R) 545SingaporeApproved the lower court’s methodology, which involved taking the monthly maintenance to be paid on a straight-line basis over a period of 17 years.
Wan Lai Cheng v Quek Seow Kee and another appeal and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2012] 4 SLR 405SingaporeEndorsed the Ong Chen Leng methodology.
UBM v UBNHigh CourtYes[2017] 4 SLR 921SingaporePointed out that the Ong Chen Leng formula was not as helpful in cases involving younger wives, and was more helpful as a guide in cases of older wives who had taken on the homemaking role in the marriage and who had little or no earning capacity at the time of the divorce.
ACY v ACZHigh CourtYes[2014] 2 SLR 1320SingaporeReasoned that a multiplier of three years would be excessive when the marriage itself had lasted for only three years; and that instead, a multiplier of 18 months – which was approximately half the duration of the marriage – would be appropriate.
CGX v CGY and another appeal and other mattersHigh CourtYes[2014] SGHC 256SingaporeReasoned that a two-year multiplier was appropriate because the marriage was a short childless one, and both parties were working.
Foo Ah Yan v Chiam Heng ChowCourt of AppealYes[2012] 2 SLR 506SingaporeHeld that a multiplier of seven years was appropriate in the circumstances, reasoning that the husband was able to meet the maintenance order due to his (non-employment) income, while the relatively shorter length of the multiplier took into account his status as a retiree.
AUA v ATZCourt of AppealYes[2016] 4 SLR 674SingaporeBoth parents had a duty to provide for their children, although their precise obligations might differ depending on their means and capabilities.
UEB v UECHigh Court (Family Division)Yes[2018] SGHCF 5SingaporeHeld that both the moneys that go towards rent and the moneys that go towards a mortgage loan… are accommodation expenses which the court can take into consideration in determining maintenance.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Family Justice Rules 2014
r 831(3)(a) and (4) of the Family Justice Rules 2014
r 821(a)
r 828
r 829

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 112(10)(a)(ii) of the Women’s CharterSingapore
s 114(1) of the Women’s CharterSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Matrimonial assets
  • Indirect contributions
  • Discount for lack of marketability
  • Discount for lack of control
  • Lump sum maintenance
  • Child maintenance
  • Valuation of shares
  • Direct financial contributions

15.2 Keywords

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

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Matrimonial Assets95
Family Law95
Maintenance90
Division of Matrimonial Property90
Maintenance (Wife)85
Maintenance (Child)85
Matrimonial Assets Division80
Child Maintenance80
Division of Assets75
Children's Maintenance70
Valuation60
Shares50

16. Subjects

  • Family Law
  • Divorce
  • Matrimonial Assets
  • Maintenance