WQP v WQQ: Division of Matrimonial Assets, Child Custody, and Maintenance Dispute

In the case of WQP v WQQ, before the General Division of the High Court (Family Division), the court addressed ancillary matters following a divorce granted on the basis of unreasonable behaviour. The issues included custody, care and control of the two children, division of matrimonial assets, and maintenance for the wife and children. The court granted joint custody to both parents but awarded sole care and control to the wife. The husband was ordered to pay monthly maintenance for the children. No maintenance was awarded to the wife. The matrimonial assets were divided with the husband ordered to transfer a sum of money to the wife.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court (Family Division)

1.2 Outcome

Matrimonial assets divided; wife granted sole care and control of children; husband to pay monthly child maintenance; no spousal maintenance.

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court case involving WQP and WQQ, addressing division of matrimonial assets, child custody, access, and maintenance after divorce.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
WQPPlaintiffIndividualPartialPartial
WQQDefendantIndividualPartialPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Mavis Chionh Sze ChyiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Foo Siew FongHarry Elias Partnership
Charis Sim Wei LiHarry Elias Partnership
Yoon Min JooHarry Elias Partnership
Kee Lay LianRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Shawn Teo Kai JieRajah & Tann Singapore LLP

4. Facts

  1. The husband and wife were married on 5 May 2010 in Hong Kong.
  2. The Interim Judgment of Divorce was granted on 29 September 2020.
  3. The husband works part-time as a non-executive director and earns rental income from an apartment in Los Angeles.
  4. The wife is a Chief Corporate Officer with Company J.
  5. The parties have two children, C1 and C2, who were 13 and 10 years old respectively at the time of the ancillary matters hearing.
  6. The husband transferred proceeds from the sale of a property in Vietnam to his mother's account.
  7. The wife owns shares in Company J, which were valued by a Joint Valuer.

5. Formal Citations

  1. WQP v WQQ, Divorce (Transferred) No 1572 of 2020, [2023] SGHCF 49

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Parties married in Hong Kong
Interim Judgment of Divorce granted
Consent order made regarding interim custody, care and control, and access
Ancillary matters heard
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Division of Matrimonial Assets
    • Outcome: The court divided the matrimonial assets, taking into account direct and indirect contributions of both parties, and ordered the husband to transfer a sum of money to the wife to equalize the division.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2007] 3 SLR(R) 743
      • [2016] 2 SLR 686
      • [2022] SGHCF 7
      • [2022] SGHCF 23
      • [2023] SGHCF 9
      • [2023] 1 SLR 1260
      • [2020] 3 SLR 683
      • [2021] SGHCF 22
      • [2021] SGHCF 10
      • [2020] SGHCF 23
      • [2007] 2 SLR(R) 729
      • [2006] SGHC 83
      • [2022] SGCA(I) 5
      • [2021] 1 SLR 426
      • [2019] 1 SLR 608
      • [2017] 1 SLR 609
      • [2018] SGCA 78
      • [2020] 2 SLR 588
      • [2015] 2 SLR 195
  2. Custody, Care and Control of Children
    • Outcome: The court granted joint custody to both parents but awarded sole care and control to the wife.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2018] 5 SLR 1089
      • [2017] 4 SLR 213
      • [2013] SGDC 324
  3. Child Maintenance
    • Outcome: The court ordered the husband to pay a total of S$2,980 as monthly maintenance for both children.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2016] 3 SLR 1137
      • [2023] SGHCF 36
      • [2022] SGHCF 3
      • [2020] SGHCF 13
      • [2021] 2 SLR 976
  4. Spousal Maintenance
    • Outcome: The court found that no order as to maintenance for the wife was necessary.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2016] SGCA 2
      • [2022] SGHCF 11
      • [2016] 3 SLR 1172
      • [2017] SGCA 34
      • [2007] 3 SLR(R) 520
      • [2014] 1 SLR 629
      • [2012] 2 SLR 506

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Custody of the children
  2. Care and control of the children
  3. Access to the children
  4. Division of matrimonial assets
  5. Maintenance for the wife
  6. Maintenance for the children

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Divorce
  • Child Custody
  • Division of Matrimonial Assets
  • Child Maintenance
  • Family Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
TAU v TATSingapore High CourtYes[2018] 5 SLR 1089SingaporeCited for the principle that there is no presumption that shared care and control is always conducive to a child’s welfare and that such an order may be made where it is suitable for a child.
BNS v BNTSingapore High CourtYes[2017] 4 SLR 213SingaporeCited for the principle that there is no general rule of sole care and control such that shared care and control is an exception and that the court will not give much weight to any potential “signalling effect” of a shared care and control order.
BLX v BLYFamily CourtYes[2013] SGDC 324SingaporeCited as an example of a case that pre-dates BNS v BNT and cannot be considered good authority for the husband's submission.
APA v APBSingapore High CourtYes[2014] SGHC 275SingaporeCited for the principle that children's medical conditions are not reasons to refuse overnight access completely.
Lim Slott v Wong Chiew HuongSingapore High CourtYes[2010] SGHC 91SingaporeCited for the principle that children not being keen to have overnight access is not sufficient basis to impose non-overnight access in the absence of other countervailing factors.
NK v NLSingapore Court of AppealYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 743SingaporeCited for the global assessment methodology in approaching the division of matrimonial assets.
ARY v ARX and another appealSingapore Court of AppealYes[2016] 2 SLR 686SingaporeCited for the principle that the date of assessment of the matrimonial asset pool should be the date of the Interim Judgment.
WAS v WATSingapore High Court (Family Division)Yes[2022] SGHCF 7SingaporeCited for the principle that the date of valuation of matrimonial assets should be the date of the ancillary matters hearing, with the exception of bank accounts and CPF accounts which are to be valued as of the Interim Judgment date.
VTU v VTVSingapore High Court (Family Division)Yes[2022] SGHCF 23SingaporeCited for the principle that the date of valuation of matrimonial assets should be the date of the ancillary matters hearing, with the exception of bank accounts and CPF accounts which are to be valued as of the Interim Judgment date.
VOW v VOVSingapore High Court (Family Division)Yes[2023] SGHCF 9SingaporeCited for the principle that the date of valuation of matrimonial assets should be the date of the ancillary matters hearing, with the exception of bank accounts and CPF accounts which are to be valued as of the Interim Judgment date.
CLC v CLBSingapore High CourtYes[2023] 1 SLR 1260SingaporeCited for the principle that the question of the identifiability of an asset said to be acquired by gift or inheritance is one of evidence, and the party who asserts that an asset has been acquired through gift or inheritance bears the burden of proving this.
UYP v UYQSingapore High CourtYes[2020] 3 SLR 683SingaporeCited for the principle that commingling would cause pre-matrimonial assets to be no longer separately identifiable.
VPH v VPISingapore High Court (Family Division)Yes[2021] SGHCF 22SingaporeCited for the principle that commingling would cause pre-matrimonial assets to be no longer separately identifiable.
VJR v VJS and another matterSingapore High Court (Family Division)Yes[2021] SGHCF 10SingaporeCited for the principle that in the absence of adequate documentation, it would be difficult to ascertain with certainty which moneys were used in each transaction where moneys were disbursed from a bank account containing both kinds of assets.
VMO v VMPSingapore High Court (Family Division)Yes[2020] SGHCF 23SingaporeCited for the principle that losses incurred by one spouse should generally be borne by both parties to the marriage.
Ong Boon Huat Samuel v Chan Mei Lan KristineSingapore High CourtYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 729SingaporeCited for the principle that the court has discretionary power to decline to add shares to the matrimonial asset pool.
Lim Ngeok Yuen v Lim Soon Heng VictorSingapore High CourtYes[2006] SGHC 83SingaporeCited to show the high bar set in cases where the court exercises its discretionary power to decline to add shares to the matrimonial asset pool.
Kiri Industries Ltd v Senda International Capital Ltd and another and other appeals and other mattersSingapore Court of Appeal (International)Yes[2022] SGCA(I) 5SingaporeCited for the principle that whether a discount for lack of marketability should be applied is an industry specific consideration that is best left to the expertise of an independent valuer.
UZN v UZMSingapore Court of AppealYes[2021] 1 SLR 426SingaporeCited 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.
BPC v BPB and another appealSingapore Court of AppealYes[2019] 1 SLR 608SingaporeCited 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.
TNL v TNK and another appeal and another matterSingapore High CourtYes[2017] 1 SLR 609SingaporeCited for the principle that the values of certain assets can be added into the pool on the basis that a party has expended substantial sums when divorce proceedings are imminent.
BOR v BOS and another appealSingapore Court of AppealYes[2018] SGCA 78SingaporeCited for the principle that the timing and amounts of withdrawals do not support the inference of an orchestrated design to remove funds from the Wife’s account.
USB v USA and another appealSingapore Court of AppealYes[2020] 2 SLR 588SingaporeCited for the principle that the broad-brush approach should be applied with particular vigour in assessing the parties’ indirect contributions and that indirect contributions during a period of cohabitation pre-marriage should not be taken into account.
Chan Tin Sun v Fong Quay SimSingapore Court of AppealYes[2015] 2 SLR 195SingaporeCited for the principle that the court, not being equipped to scrutinise the conduct of the parties to assign blame, would be ill-placed to deal with allegations of misconduct.
ATE v ATDSingapore Court of AppealYes[2016] SGCA 2SingaporeCited for the principle that the court can take into account each party’s share of the matrimonial assets when assessing the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be ordered.
WDO v WDPSingapore High Court (Family Division)Yes[2022] SGHCF 11SingaporeCited for the principle that the court can take into account each party’s share of the matrimonial assets when assessing the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be ordered.
TNC v TNDSingapore High CourtYes[2016] 3 SLR 1172SingaporeCited for the principle that an order of maintenance under s 113 of the Women’s Charter supplements the order for the division of matrimonial assets and that maintenance is based on need.
TND v TNC and another appealSingapore Court of AppealYes[2017] SGCA 34SingaporeCited for the principle that the Court of Appeal left Ong JC’s orders on maintenance undisturbed.
Lock Yeng Fun v Chua Hock ChyeSingapore High CourtYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 520SingaporeCited for the principle that courts have routinely varied the maintenance sum ordered to account for the matrimonial assets divided between parties.
Oh Choon v Lee Siew LinSingapore High CourtYes[2014] 1 SLR 629SingaporeCited for the principle that courts have routinely varied the maintenance sum ordered to account for the matrimonial assets divided between parties.
Foo Ah Yan v Chiam Heng ChowSingapore High CourtYes[2012] 2 SLR 506SingaporeCited for the principle that courts have routinely varied the maintenance sum ordered to account for the matrimonial assets divided between parties.
TIT v TIUSingapore High CourtYes[2016] 3 SLR 1137SingaporeCited for the principle that the duty to maintain children is shared by both parents.
WOS v WOTSingapore High Court (Family Division)Yes[2023] SGHCF 36SingaporeCited for the principle that despite the wife being a homemaker with no income, after receiving a share of over $8 million in matrimonial assets she would have no financial issues bearing a fair share of the child’s expenses, and it would therefore be fair for both parties to share this burden equally and for the principle that a child’s reasonable needs are not determined solely by the financial capabilities of its parents.
CLB v CLCSingapore High Court (Family Division)Yes[2022] SGHCF 3SingaporeCited as an example of a local case where health insurance expenses were allowed in respect of maintenance for the children of a marriage.
VJQ v VJP and another appealSingapore High Court (Family Division)Yes[2020] SGHCF 13SingaporeCited as an example of a local case where term life insurance expenses were allowed in respect of maintenance for the children of a marriage.
TOF v TOESingapore High CourtYes[2021] 2 SLR 976SingaporeCited as an example of a local case where insurance expenses were allowed in respect of maintenance for the children of a marriage.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Women’s Charter 1961Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Matrimonial assets
  • Care and control
  • Access
  • Maintenance
  • Dissipation
  • Joint custody
  • Sole custody
  • Interim Judgment
  • Ancillary matters
  • Global assessment methodology

15.2 Keywords

  • divorce
  • matrimonial assets
  • child custody
  • child maintenance
  • spousal maintenance
  • Singapore
  • family law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Family Law95
Division of Matrimonial Assets90
Care and Control90
Access to Children90
Maintenance90
Maintenance (Wife)90
Maintenance (Child)90
Child Custody90
Children's Welfare70
Contract Law30
Civil Procedure20
Succession Law10

16. Subjects

  • Family Law
  • Divorce
  • Matrimonial Assets
  • Child Custody
  • Child Maintenance
  • Spousal Maintenance