Case Details
- Citation: [2018] SGHCF 9
- Title: UJP v UJQ
- Court: High Court (Family Division)
- Division/Proceeding Type: HCF/Divorce (Transferred) No 5125 of 2015
- Date of Judgment: 3 April 2018
- Dates of Hearing/Reservation: 12 February, 12 March 2018; Judgment reserved
- Judge: Choo Han Teck J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: UJP
- Defendant/Respondent: UJQ
- Legal Areas: Family Law — Custody; Family Law — Maintenance; Family Law — Matrimonial assets; Family Law — Division; Costs
- Statutes Referenced: Not specified in the provided extract
- Cases Cited: [2018] SGHCF 9 (as provided)
- Judgment Length: 13 pages, 3,397 words
Summary
UJP v UJQ ([2018] SGHCF 9) is a High Court (Family Division) decision addressing multiple ancillary matters arising from a divorce: (i) custody and care and control of three children, (ii) maintenance for the children (including school fees and other expenses), and (iii) division of matrimonial assets, including disputes over whether particular assets formed part of the matrimonial pool and how certain assets should be valued. The court’s approach reflects a pragmatic, evidence-sensitive assessment of the children’s best interests and a structured method for maintenance and asset division.
On custody, the court awarded care and control of the eldest child to the plaintiff, based on the child’s mature and independent views following an interview. For the two younger children, the court preserved the existing alternating living arrangement by ordering shared care and control. On maintenance, the court ordered the defendant to continue paying school fees directly to the school, and to pay a proportionate share of the children’s other expenses based on the parties’ incomes. The court also backdated the maintenance order for a limited period, giving credit for sums already paid under an interim order and for the defendant’s direct spending while the children were with him. For the matrimonial assets, the court added disputed assets to the pool where the defendant’s claimed trust or exclusion was not accepted, and it adopted proportional inclusion where only part of an account was attributable to the marriage period.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The parties were married for 15 years before their marriage broke down in 2015. The plaintiff, UJP, was 48 years old and worked as a programme manager. The defendant, UJQ, was 46 years old and worked as a managing director of a financial technology company. They had three children: two daughters aged 17 and 15, and a son aged 10. The divorce proceedings commenced in 2015, and interim maintenance was granted in February 2016.
During the divorce, the parties raised five issues for determination: care and control of the children, maintenance for the children, division of matrimonial assets, maintenance for the plaintiff, and costs. The extract focuses primarily on the first three issues, with the court’s reasoning on custody, maintenance, and asset division being the most detailed. The court also conducted interviews with the children, which played a significant role in the custody determination.
For care and control, the eldest child expressed that she did not wish to see her father. The court considered her views carefully, assessing her maturity and independence. The two younger children had been alternating between the homes of the plaintiff and defendant during the divorce proceedings, and the court found that they appeared well adjusted to that arrangement. This factual context—particularly the children’s lived arrangements during the proceedings—was central to the court’s “best interests” analysis.
For maintenance, the plaintiff sought (a) payment of school fees by the defendant and (b) $9,150 per month for other expenses, amounting to approximately 75% of the children’s total monthly expenses (excluding school fees). The plaintiff also sought backdating of the maintenance order to the commencement of the divorce proceedings (November 2015), taking into account interim maintenance payments. In addition, she claimed an extra $7,300.05 for the eldest child’s gap year abroad in 2016. The defendant’s position was that the children’s expenses should be borne in proportion to the parties’ incomes, resulting in the defendant paying 65% of the children’s expenses.
For matrimonial assets, the parties were unable to agree on whether certain assets formed part of the matrimonial pool and how some assets should be valued. The defendant argued that part of “Property 1” was held on trust for his brother and should be excluded. The plaintiff disputed the existence of any such arrangement and, in any event, argued that a loan would not create a beneficial interest in the property. The court also dealt with disputes about the inclusion of the parties’ BNPP Employee Savings Accounts (and the proportion to include), and whether a Targo Bank account held for the children should be excluded. Valuation disputes included the timing of valuation for bank accounts, the evidential reliability of a spreadsheet regarding a securities account, and the valuation of a parcel of land in Poland registered in the plaintiff’s uncle’s name.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The first key issue was custody: specifically, who should be awarded care and control of each child, and whether the court should order shared care and control for all or some of the children. The court had to apply the statutory and common law framework for determining the children’s best interests, which in practice requires consideration of the children’s welfare, their views (especially for older children), and the stability of their living arrangements.
The second key issue concerned maintenance for the children. The court had to determine (i) what categories of expenses should be covered (school fees, ordinary monthly expenses, and additional expenses such as a gap year), (ii) whether maintenance should be backdated, and (iii) how to apportion the children’s expenses between the parents. This required the court to assess the parties’ incomes and to decide whether the apportionment should be based on past income, current income, or a blended approach.
The third key issue was division of matrimonial assets. The court had to decide whether disputed assets formed part of the matrimonial pool and, if so, how they should be valued and divided. This included legal questions about trusts and beneficial interests (for Property 1), the extent to which employee savings accounts accumulated during marriage should be included (for the BNPP accounts), and evidential questions about valuation dates and the reliability of documents used to establish asset values.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
Care and control / custody: The court’s custody analysis began with the eldest child’s expressed views. The court noted that during its interview, the eldest child stated that she did not wish to see her father. Importantly, the court found that the child was sufficiently mature to express an independent opinion and to decide what was best for herself. On that basis, the court awarded care and control of the eldest child to the plaintiff, with reasonable access for the defendant. This reflects the court’s willingness to give meaningful weight to the views of a mature child, while still grounding the decision in the best interests framework.
For the two younger children, the court took a different approach. It observed that during the divorce proceedings the children had been alternating between the parties’ homes and that, from the court’s interviews, they appeared well adjusted to the existing arrangement. The court considered that it would be in the best interests of the two younger children for the status quo to be preserved. Accordingly, it ordered shared care and control for the two younger children. This indicates that, where children are already coping well with a particular arrangement, the court may treat continuity and stability as significant factors in the best-interests assessment.
Maintenance for the children: The court accepted that the defendant should continue to pay school fees, and it ordered that payment be made directly to the school. This was consistent with the factual history that school fees had “always been borne by the defendant.” The court therefore treated continuity in the payment of school fees as both practical and fair.
For other monthly expenses, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that rent should be removed because the plaintiff was no longer renting the specific property used to derive the figure. The court reasoned that even if the plaintiff had moved, she was still living in a rented property, and the previous rental expenditure remained a reasonable estimate of her current rental expenditure. This demonstrates the court’s pragmatic approach to expense estimation where exact current figures are not fully established.
The parties agreed that expenses should be borne in proportion to their incomes, but they disagreed on the percentage. The plaintiff argued for a 75-25 split in favour of the defendant based on past four years’ income, while the defendant argued for 65-35 based on current incomes. The court addressed the plaintiff’s contention that the defendant’s current income figure was inaccurate because it did not include bonuses. The defendant responded that he had only recently commenced his current job and could not predict bonus amounts. The court also considered the defendant’s argument that the plaintiff’s income calculation improperly included rental income from the parties’ properties, while the defendant’s calculation did not include similar rental income. In the end, the court was “inclined to accept” the defendant’s proposed proportion, partly because the defendant was shouldering school fees of about $6,587.08 per month. On that basis, the court ordered the defendant to pay $7,900 per month (65% of $12,165.24) as maintenance for the three children.
Backdating and credits: The court indicated it was inclined to backdate the maintenance order due to the “not insignificant period of time” since the interim judgment. However, it limited the backdating to one year. The court gave credit not only for the $1,500 per month paid under the interim maintenance order, but also for $1,880 per month that the defendant had spent on the children while they were with him. This reflects a careful balancing: the court recognised the fairness of backdating, but it avoided double counting and ensured that the defendant received credit for actual support provided during the relevant period.
Additional expenses (gap year): The plaintiff claimed $7,300.05 for additional expenses incurred by the eldest child’s gap year abroad in 2016. The court ordered the defendant to pay 65% of that amount ($4,745.03), consistent with the income proportion adopted for ordinary maintenance. This shows that the court treated the gap year expenses as part of the broader maintenance framework, rather than as a separate discretionary category requiring a different apportionment.
Division of matrimonial assets: The court’s asset division analysis proceeded asset-by-asset. For Property 1, the defendant argued that one-third of his share should be excluded because it was held on trust for his brother, based on an alleged loan. The plaintiff disputed the arrangement and argued that even if there were a loan, it would not have given rise to a beneficial interest. The court agreed with the plaintiff and added Property 1 “as a whole” to the matrimonial pool. While the extract does not set out the detailed trust reasoning, the outcome indicates that the defendant failed to establish the trust or beneficial interest on the evidence available.
For the BNPP Employee Savings Accounts, the court adopted a proportional inclusion method to reflect only the portion accumulated during the marriage. The plaintiff’s BNPP account: the court accepted that the plaintiff had accumulated moneys during the marriage, but because no evidence of exact amounts accumulated during marriage was adduced, it used a proportion based on years of accumulation during the marriage relative to total years of accumulation. The plaintiff claimed she contributed from 1998 to 2001, which the court treated as about one year of contributions during the marriage; it therefore added one quarter of the value of the plaintiff’s BNPP account to the matrimonial pool, resulting in $7,534.34.
The defendant’s BNPP account: similarly, the court included a portion based on the marriage period. The defendant claimed contributions from 1995 to 2003. The court added 4/9 of the value of the defendant’s BNPP account to the matrimonial pool, amounting to $90,035.88. This proportional approach demonstrates the court’s attempt to approximate the marital component of employee savings where precise tracing is not available.
For the Targo Bank account, the defendant argued it should be included, but the plaintiff contended it was meant for the children. The court noted that the defendant had similarly held POSB bank accounts with moneys meant for the children, and the defendant intended to close those accounts and pay the moneys to the children. The plaintiff had no objection to that arrangement. The court accepted that the Targo Bank account may be excluded from the matrimonial pool, but only on condition that the plaintiff also pay the moneys in the Targo Bank account to the children. This illustrates how the court can exclude assets from the matrimonial pool where they are effectively earmarked for children, while still imposing conditions to prevent misuse.
Valuation disputes: The court also addressed valuation timing. The parties disagreed on dates for valuing bank accounts. The plaintiff argued for valuing her bank accounts as of August 2016 because she had used funds for children’s expenses, while the defendant argued for July 2016. The court agreed that bank accounts should be valued at the same date, and it used July 2016 figures for the defendant’s accounts because the parties did not provide August 2016 figures for the defendant. The court also considered that the plaintiff’s objection carried less weight because maintenance had been backdated.
For the defendant’s Cortal Securities account, the plaintiff relied on a spreadsheet allegedly prepared by the defendant showing a high balance in 2013 and a low balance in 2016. The court declined to rely on the spreadsheet because the circumstances and context of its creation were unknown, making it unsafe to rely on the information. The court therefore took the value of the Cortal Securities account as $40.65. This is a clear evidential lesson: courts may discount documents where provenance and reliability are not established.
The extract ends mid-discussion of a further dispute: the valuation of a parcel of land in Poland owned by the plaintiff but registered in her uncle’s name. The plaintiff’s valuation was based on enquiries with her uncle and the price she paid for the property. Although the remainder is truncated, the extract indicates the court was assessing valuation evidence and the implications of registration in a third party’s name.
What Was the Outcome?
The court made orders on custody and maintenance. It awarded care and control of the eldest child to the plaintiff, with reasonable access for the defendant. For the two younger children, it ordered shared care and control, preserving the existing alternating arrangement that the court found the children were coping with well.
On maintenance, the court ordered the defendant to pay school fees directly to the school, and to pay $7,900 per month as maintenance for the three children (65% of $12,165.24). It backdated the maintenance order for one year, giving credit for interim maintenance payments and for the defendant’s spending while the children were with him. It also ordered the defendant to pay 65% of the eldest child’s gap year expenses ($4,745.03). The extract does not provide the final orders on plaintiff’s maintenance, costs, or the complete matrimonial asset division, but it confirms the court’s determinations on the major contested components described.
Why Does This Case Matter?
UJP v UJQ is useful for practitioners because it demonstrates how the Family Division approaches (1) custody decisions where children’s views differ by age and maturity, and (2) maintenance apportionment where parties disagree on whether to use past income or current income. The court’s willingness to accept a child’s independent views for the eldest child, while prioritising stability for the younger children, provides a practical illustration of the best-interests analysis in Singapore divorce proceedings.
For maintenance, the case highlights several recurring issues: the treatment of school fees (including direct payment to the school), the estimation of expenses where exact current figures are not produced, and the method of apportioning expenses by income. The court’s approach to backdating—backdating but limiting the period and giving credit for interim payments and direct spending—offers a concrete framework for arguing fairness and avoiding double counting.
For matrimonial asset division, the decision is instructive on evidential and tracing principles. It shows that claimed trusts must be supported by convincing evidence; otherwise, assets may be added to the matrimonial pool. It also illustrates a proportional inclusion method for employee savings accounts when precise tracing is unavailable, and it demonstrates how courts may exclude accounts earmarked for children, subject to conditions ensuring the earmarking is honoured. Finally, the court’s refusal to rely on an unexplained spreadsheet underscores the importance of evidential reliability and context in valuation disputes.
Legislation Referenced
- (Not specified in the provided extract.)
Cases Cited
- [2018] SGHCF 9 (as provided)
Source Documents
This article analyses [2018] SGHCF 9 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.