WRX v WRY
The document “[2024] SGHC(A) 22” is a judgment from the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore, dealing with the case WRX v WRY. The primary issues in the case revolve around the division of matrimonial assets, maintenance for the wife and children, and the drawing of adverse inferences due to non-disclosure of assets.
Key Points from the Judgment:
1. Background and Parties:
- WRX (Husband) is a French citizen and Singapore Permanent Resident.
- WRY (Wife) is a Singaporean.
- They married in 2002 and have two children.
- Divorce proceedings began in 2020, with the interim judgment of divorce granted in 2021.
2. Division of Matrimonial Assets:
- The Husband appealed against the division of assets, arguing for a lower valuation of his investment accounts and higher valuation of the Wife’s insurance policy.
- The court restored a dissipated sum of $1,258,047 to the matrimonial pool due to the Wife’s non-disclosure and adjusted the distribution ratio.
3. Adverse Inference:
- The Wife failed to disclose complete financial information, leading to an adverse inference drawn against her.
- The court included the undisclosed sum in the matrimonial pool but did not credit it as part of the Wife’s direct contributions.
4. Maintenance:
- The initial maintenance order for the Wife was overturned, as she had substantial assets and earning capacity.
- The Husband was ordered to pay 65% of the children’s expenses, with specific provisions for direct payments to service providers.
5. Final Distribution:
- The total matrimonial pool was valued at $4,370,923.29.
- The Husband was awarded 51% ($2,229,170.88) and the Wife 49% ($2,141,752.41).
6. Costs:
- Each party was to bear their own costs for the proceedings below.
- The Wife was ordered to pay $30,000 in costs for the appeal.
Conclusion:
The judgment detailed the court’s approach in handling non-disclosure of assets, adjustments in the division of matrimonial property, and modifications in maintenance orders to reflect the equitable distribution of responsibilities and assets. The decision emphasized the importance of full and frank disclosure in divorce proceedings and the equitable distribution of matrimonial assets.
