WZF v WZG: Division of Matrimonial Assets & Child Custody Dispute

In WZF v WZG, the General Division of the High Court (Family Division) in Singapore, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Mohamed Faizal on January 9, 2025, addressed a divorce case involving disputes over child custody, division of matrimonial assets, and maintenance. The court granted joint custody to both parents, care and control to the Wife, and ordered a division of matrimonial assets with a larger share awarded to the Wife due to the Husband's non-disclosure of assets. The court also ordered the Husband to pay child maintenance but denied the Wife's request for spousal maintenance.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court (Family Division)

1.2 Outcome

Orders made for joint custody, care and control to the Wife, division of matrimonial assets, child maintenance, and no spousal maintenance.

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court case involving division of matrimonial assets, child custody, and maintenance, with adverse inference drawn against husband for asset non-disclosure.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Mohamed FaizalJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization

4. Facts

  1. The parties were married in June 2015 and have one child, born in 2018.
  2. The Wife is a Malaysian citizen working in Singapore since 2015.
  3. The Husband is an Australian citizen.
  4. The Husband moved out of the shared residence in July 2022.
  5. The Wife commenced divorce proceedings in March 2023.
  6. The Husband failed to disclose key assets, including shareholdings in multiple entities.
  7. The Wife adduced evidence showing the Husband's paid-up share capital in an Indonesian company is worth at least S$10m.

5. Formal Citations

  1. WZF v WZG, Divorce (Transferred) No 1420 of 2023, [2025] SGHCF 1
  2. WZF v WZG, , [2024] SGFC 46

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Parties married in Australia
Wife started working and residing in Singapore
Child born
Husband moved out of the Premises
Wife commenced divorce proceedings against the Husband in Singapore
Parties entered into a consent order regarding the Husband’s interim access arrangements to the Child
Endowment Fund closed by the Husband
Husband only disclosed a single statement for the period of January to June 2023 for Australian superannuation account
Interim judgment granted, dissolving the marriage
Wife took out a discovery application
Access has not taken place since February 2024
Information relating to the insurance policies was requested by the Wife by way of a letter
Husband's accountant informed him that the process of preparing and lodging tax returns would take around six months
Court found entirely in favour of the Wife by ordering the disclosure of all of the necessary documents sought by the Wife by 7 August 2024
Disclosure of all of the necessary documents sought by the Wife
Husband filed a barebones affidavit essentially obeying the order only in name
Joint summary of parties’ positions filed
Judgment reserved
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Custody of Child
    • Outcome: The court ordered joint custody of the Child to both parents.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Division of Matrimonial Assets
    • Outcome: The court drew an adverse inference against the Husband for non-disclosure of assets and awarded a larger share of the matrimonial assets to the Wife.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Non-disclosure of assets
      • Valuation of assets
      • Adverse inference
  3. Child Maintenance
    • Outcome: The court ordered the Husband to pay monthly maintenance for the Child, as well as a lump sum of backdated maintenance.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Quantum of maintenance
      • Apportionment of maintenance
      • Lump sum vs monthly payments
  4. Spousal Maintenance
    • Outcome: The court declined to grant any order for spousal maintenance.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Sole custody of the child
  2. Division of matrimonial assets
  3. Child maintenance
  4. Spousal maintenance

9. Cause of Actions

  • Divorce

10. Practice Areas

  • Divorce
  • Family Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
USB v USA and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2020] 2 SLR 588SingaporeCited for the therapeutic justice approach to matrimonial matters and eschewing cross-examination.
TVJ v TVKHigh Court (Family Division)Yes[2017] SGHCF 1SingaporeCited regarding the importance of parties’ duties of disclosure in divorce proceedings.
Leitch v NovacOntario Court of AppealYes[2020] 150 OR (3d) 587CanadaCited to emphasize the impact of non-disclosure of assets in family law proceedings.
Cunha v da CunhaSupreme Court of British ColumbiaYes[1994] BCJ No 2573CanadaCited to highlight the importance of ensuring that the implications of concealment of assets are visited exclusively on the offending party.
VLI v VLJHigh CourtYes[2022] 5 SLR 301SingaporeCited for the common practice of granting consent orders on care and control when parties are in agreement.
CX v CY (minor: custody and access)Court of AppealYes[2005] 3 SLR(R) 690SingaporeCited for the principles applicable to the concept of custody and the definition of custody.
VZJ v VZKHigh Court (Family Division)Yes[2024] SGHCF 16SingaporeCited for the principle that joint custody is the norm even where there is acrimony between parties.
VJM v VJL and another appealHigh CourtYes[2021] 5 SLR 1233SingaporeCited for the court’s approach to joint custody and the reminder that parties are to work together and continue to be jointly responsible for the well-being and upbringing of the child.
CXR v CXQHigh Court (Family Division)Yes[2023] SGHCF 10SingaporeCited for the courts to order or to advise the parties to go through counselling and mediation.
VDZ v VEAHigh CourtNo[2020] 2 SLR 858SingaporeCited for the principle that applications for custody, care and access are not weaponised as tools to control the other spouse or to hurt that spouse.
YG v YHHigh CourtYes[2008] SGHC 166SingaporeCited for the principle that parties who have been awarded joint custody of their children in divorce proceedings should take a sensible approach towards the exercise of those rights.
TEN v TEO and another appealHigh Court (Family Division)Yes[2020] SGHCF 20SingaporeCited as an example of a case where the court affirmed a veto power in favour of the father due to the highly hostile relationship between the parties.
APE v APFHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHC 17SingaporeCited for the principle that unsupervised access should be the norm, save in exceptional circumstances.
BPC v BPB and another appealHigh CourtYes[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 of concealment against the person whom the inference is to be drawn against.
UZN v UZMHigh CourtYes[2021] 1 SLR 426SingaporeCited for the two broad approaches that are generally adopted to give effect to an adverse inference arising from non-disclosure.
WRX v WRY and another matterHigh CourtYes[2024] 1 SLR 851SingaporeCited for the principle that the court may, in appropriate circumstances, employ both the quantification and uplift approach simultaneously where doing so would give full effect to the adverse inference drawn.
Tan Ming Ren, “Honesty is the Best Policy: Adverse Inferences and Non-Disclosure of Matrimonial Assets”N/AYes[2021] Sing JLS 394SingaporeCited for the sound reasons, in principle, as to why, in most cases, the quantification approach is conceptually preferred to the uplift approach.
ANJ v ANKHigh CourtYes[2015] 4 SLR 1043SingaporeCited for the structured approach for the division of matrimonial assets.
TNL v TNK and another appeal and another matterHigh CourtYes[2017] 1 SLR 609SingaporeCited for the structured approach for the division of matrimonial assets.
Yeo Chong Lin v Tay Ang Choo Nancy and another appealHigh CourtYes[2011] 2 SLR 1157SingaporeCited for the principle that if such pool is extraordinarily large, then direct contributions would normally play a more outsized role than indirect contributions.
WUI v WUJHigh CourtYes[2024] 5 SLR 979SingaporeCited for the matter of the appropriate weight to be placed on indirect contributions is necessarily a fact-specific exercise.
WPN v WPOHigh Court (Family Division)Yes[2023] SGHCF 38SingaporeCited for the alternative valuation of the shares that was, for example, adjusted for lack of control or marketing.
TOE v TOFHigh Court (Family Division)Yes[2020] SGHCF 18SingaporeCited for the need for spouses to be honest with each other in marriage extends to being honest and forthright to the court in a divorce.
AUA v ATZHigh CourtYes[2016] 4 SLR 674SingaporeCited for the principle that financial obligations of parents may differ depending on their means and capabilities.
TIT v TIUHigh CourtYes[2016] 3 SLR 1137SingaporeCited for the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.
WBU v WBTHigh Court (Family Division)Yes[2023] SGHCF 3SingaporeCited for the principle that the mere fact that the parties have been paying for certain items during the marriage does not automatically render such expenses reasonable expenses for the purposes of determining maintenance.
WOS v WOTHigh Court (Family Division)Yes[2023] SGHCF 36SingaporeCited for the principle that a child’s “reasonable needs” are not determined solely by the financial capabilities of its parents.
XGA v XGBHigh Court (Family Division)Yes[2024] SGHCF 47SingaporeCited for the expenses such as Netflix are luxuries that cannot be claimed in the context of child maintenance.
AYM v AYL and another appealHigh CourtYes[2014] 4 SLR 559SingaporeCited for the principle that a lump sum payment would be typically sensible where it allows the parties to have a clean break from the marriage.
Lee Puey Hwa v Tay Cheow SengHigh CourtYes[1991] 2 SLR(R) 196SingaporeCited for the principle that a lump sum payment would be typically sensible where it allows the parties to have a clean break from the marriage.
Neo Mei Lan Helena v Long Melvin Anthony (Yeo Bee Leong, co-respondent)High CourtYes[2002] 2 SLR(R) 616SingaporeCited for the principle that a lump sum payment would be typically sensible where default in periodic payments may be likely and such lump sum payment would not cripple the husband financially.
AMW v AMZHigh CourtYes[2011] 3 SLR 955SingaporeCited for the date of the writ may typically serve as a reference point for the date that maintenance ought to be backdated to.
CGX v CGY and another appeal and other mattersHigh CourtYes[2014] SGHC 256SingaporeCited for the principle that maintenance should not be granted as a matter of course, but on the basis that the facts of the case can support such a request.
ATE v ATD and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2016] SGCA 2SingaporeCited for the parties appear to have been quite financially independent.
BG v BFHigh CourtYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 233SingaporeCited for the court’s power to order spousal maintenance is complementary to its power to divide matrimonial assets.
WQP v WQQHigh CourtYes[2024] 2 SLR 557SingaporeCited for the principle that sad is the day when married couples keep records or organise their affairs in ways that will put them in a better financial position in the event that the marriage ends in divorce.
Leong Wai Kum, “Definition of Property as Matrimonial Asset Through the Lens of Therapeutic Justice”N/AYes[2024] SAL Prac 4SingaporeCited for the definition of property as matrimonial asset through the lens of therapeutic justice.
WLE v WLFHigh Court (Family Division)Yes[2023] SGHCF 14SingaporeCited for the careful consideration must be given when declaring expenses as reasonable, especially when such a declaration would essentially coerce one parent into accepting the other’s parenting approach.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Evidence Act 1893Singapore
Women’s Charter 1961Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Matrimonial assets
  • Adverse inference
  • Non-disclosure
  • Joint custody
  • Care and control
  • Child maintenance
  • Spousal maintenance
  • Paid-up capital
  • Quantification approach
  • Uplift approach

15.2 Keywords

  • Divorce
  • Family Law
  • Matrimonial Assets
  • Child Custody
  • Child Maintenance
  • Spousal Maintenance
  • Singapore
  • Adverse Inference
  • Non-disclosure

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Family Law95
Division of Matrimonial Assets90
Child Custody80
Maintenance75
Evidence Law60

16. Subjects

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