Case Details
- Citation: [2022] SGHCF 29
- Title: VEV v VEW
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore (Family Division)
- Case Type: District Court Appeal (Family Law — Maintenance — Child)
- District Court Appeal No: 49 of 2022
- Date of Judgment: 16 December 2022
- Date Judgment Reserved: 11 November 2022
- Judge: Choo Han Teck J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: VEV (the Father / Husband)
- Defendant/Respondent: VEW (the Mother / Wife)
- Legal Area: Family Law — Maintenance (Children)
- Statutes Referenced: Not stated in the provided extract
- Cases Cited: [2022] SGHCF 29 (no other authorities are identifiable from the provided extract)
- Judgment Length: 9 pages, 2,285 words
Summary
VEV v VEW [2022] SGHCF 29 concerned a father’s appeal against ancillary matters variation orders relating to the maintenance of two children, specifically the allocation of uninsured medical costs (“deductibles” and other out-of-pocket expenses) and the treatment of past insurance payments. The High Court (Family Division) upheld the District Judge’s approach in principle, finding that there had been a material change in circumstances after the original ancillary matters orders, and that the variation was justified to address significant uninsured medical expenses that arose for the first time after the earlier orders.
The court also addressed the father’s argument that the “deductibles” issue had already been dealt with during the ancillary matters proceedings. The High Court accepted that while some provision for “medical/dental” expenses existed, it did not clearly cover all uninsured medical payments that later materialised. It further endorsed the District Judge’s method of apportioning uninsured medical costs between the parents in proportion to their relative incomes, while noting that further variation could be sought if the mother’s income improved. On the past payments issue, the High Court scrutinised whether the parties had acquiesced to a lower insurance premium figure than that stated in the earlier orders, and it emphasised the practical realities of how maintenance breakdowns are implemented by parents with care and control.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The parties were married in Italy on 14 July 2011. The father (aged 49) is an English barrister who works as a mediator, counsel and arbitrator. He has dual citizenship (United Kingdom and Australia) and is also a Singapore permanent resident. The mother (aged 39) is a part-time pre-school teacher and a director of a handmade-chocolate company. She has a law degree and a master’s degree in law, and she also holds dual citizenship (United Kingdom and Ireland).
They have two children, aged seven and five. The father filed for divorce in July 2018, and interim judgment was granted on 5 March 2019. Ancillary matters orders (“AM Orders”) were made on 8 October 2019. Following an appeal by the father against the entirety of the AM Orders, the High Court Family Division made orders on appeal on 11 March 2021. Under those orders, the parties were awarded joint custody, with care and control to the mother and access to the father.
After the conclusion of the appeal in March 2021, the mother filed FC/SUM 3151/2021 (“SUM 3151”) to vary the orders for the children’s maintenance. The mother’s key request was that the father should be solely responsible for excess or uninsured medical expenses not covered by insurance for the children. The District Judge allowed a variation in part, and issued grounds of decision on 14 March 2022, followed by further orders on 6 April 2022 (“Further Orders”).
In the District Judge’s orders, several components were relevant. First, the District Judge assessed the father’s income and earning capacity, noting that although the father produced an IRAS notice of assessment showing income of $4,300 per month in June 2021, his expenses exceeded his declared income and the court inferred undeclared income. The District Judge therefore took an average of past and present income over four years, arriving at an average income of $8,575 per month. The mother’s income was assessed at $3,000 per month. Second, with effect from 1 April 2022, the District Judge ordered that excess payments for children’s medical expenses not covered by insurers (“deductibles”) be shared in the ratio of 75:25 between father and mother, in accordance with their income ratio. Third, for insurance payments, the mother was made solely responsible for $454.22, representing the medical insurance premium from 14 March 2022, while the father was required to make direct payment to the children’s health insurance provider and then deduct an agreed sum of $454.22 from the maintenance paid to the mother.
Finally, the District Judge addressed a “past payments” question: the father was not retrospectively entitled to any amounts in excess of the monthly sum of $454.22 from the date of the AM Orders until 14 March 2022. The District Judge reasoned that the parties had acquiesced to the monthly sum through their conduct, and that it would be inequitable to allow the father to claim retrospectively. The District Judge also awarded the father costs of $1,500 (exclusive of disbursements). The father then appealed these aspects of the District Judge’s decision.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The appeal raised three principal issues. The first was whether the District Judge was wrong to vary the AM Orders by requiring the parties to pay for “deductibles” or uninsured/out-of-pocket expenses in the ratio of 75:25. The father argued that the “deductibles” issue had already been dealt with during the AM proceedings and that there was no material change in circumstances to justify a variation. He also contended that the District Judge’s decision effectively compensated the mother twice for deductibles, by providing both an existing allowance and additional responsibility for future uninsured costs.
The second issue concerned the District Judge’s treatment of past insurance payments. The father argued that the District Judge’s order prevented him from claiming amounts in excess of $454.22 retrospectively, even though the earlier AM Orders had determined a higher monthly health insurance sum of $496 per month (based on figures provided by the mother). The father framed the practical effect as a “windfall” to the mother for the difference over a period of 29 months.
The third issue related to costs. The father submitted that the award of costs of $1,500 (exclusive of disbursements) was manifestly low, implying that the District Judge’s costs order did not adequately reflect the circumstances of the proceedings.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The High Court began by addressing whether the District Judge was right to vary the AM Orders regarding uninsured medical costs. The judge treated the question as one requiring a threshold assessment of whether there was a material change in circumstances since the AM Orders. On the evidence described in the extract, the court found that there was such a change. The judge observed that after the AM Orders were made, the parties had to deal with deductibles for the first time, arising from costs incurred after the daughter’s visit to a neurologist for a medical examination and the son’s health screening. These events generated uninsured medical expenses that were not clearly anticipated or fully covered by the earlier maintenance breakdown.
In doing so, the High Court clarified the District Judge’s use of terminology. The father argued that “deductibles” had already been considered at the AM stage because the AM Orders included a provision of $20 per month for “[m]edical/dental” expenses. The High Court accepted that the District Judge had used “deductibles” and “out-of-pocket payments” interchangeably, but explained that the District Judge was essentially referring to costs not covered by the children’s healthcare insurance. The High Court agreed with the District Judge’s view that the earlier “medical/dental” provision did not necessarily cover all uninsured medical payments that later arose. The judge noted that the amounts discussed during SUM 3151 were about $175 for both children, and that the District Judge had considered these amounts “significant enough” and not expressly covered below.
Accordingly, the High Court rejected the father’s submission that there was no basis for variation. Even if some provision existed for medical/dental expenses, the later emergence of significant uninsured medical payments constituted a material change in circumstances. The court’s reasoning reflects a practical approach: maintenance orders for children are not frozen in time, and where the children’s healthcare needs and insurance coverage realities evolve, the court may revisit the allocation of costs to ensure the orders remain fair and workable.
The court then turned to whether the District Judge was correct to apportion uninsured medical costs according to the parents’ income ratio of 75:25. The father argued that the District Judge should have used his present income of $4,300 rather than an earning capacity figure of $8,575. The High Court observed that the District Judge did not have sight of three years of the father’s income tax documents because the father did not submit them. However, the District Judge did have past records showing income earning capacity in excess of $4,300 per month. The High Court therefore concluded that it was not wrong for the District Judge to make a general estimate in the absence of complete documentation.
The judge further endorsed the District Judge’s consideration of the father’s professional success and multiple streams of income, including investment and rental property. In contrast, the mother’s earning capacity and present income were assessed as more limited, given that she had been a stay-home mother for several years and was presently only part-time. The High Court reasoned that, relative to each other, it would be difficult for the mother to fully bear uninsured expenses at that stage of life. In these circumstances, the court considered it fair for the parties to bear uninsured expenses in proportion to their relative incomes. Importantly, the court also noted that the parties could apply for a further variation if the mother’s income improves, signalling that the apportionment was not intended to be permanently fixed.
On the past payments issue, the High Court examined whether the parties had acquiesced to the monthly insurance premium sum of $454.22 rather than the $496 figure stated in the AM Orders. The extract indicates that the AM Orders dated 20 January 2020 determined the monthly sum for each child’s health insurance at $248, totalling $496 per month. Yet in SUM 3151, the District Judge stated that the monthly health insurance should be $454.22 for both children, and that the father was not entitled to any amount in excess of this sum from the date of the AM Orders to 14 March 2022. The father argued that this would result in a windfall to the mother of $1,218.
The High Court stated that it was “not able to find any evidence” of express acquiescence to $454.22. However, it considered the parties’ practice and conduct. The judge observed that the father consistently deducted $454.22 from November 2019 to March 2022, which could be taken as acquiescence to the insurance sum being $454.22 instead of $496. The High Court also accepted the mother’s explanation that she had chosen a cheaper policy to manage her expenses for the children and to allocate funds for uncovered medical expenses, particularly because there was no specific provision in the AM Orders for this breakdown.
Crucially, the High Court emphasised that while the court determines the maintenance of children, the specific breakdown of how the maintenance sum is spent should not be rigidly regulated. The parent with care and control is entitled to adjust how the monthly maintenance is spent based on the children’s day-to-day needs and welfare. This reasoning supports a flexible, welfare-oriented approach to maintenance implementation, and it helps explain why the court was reluctant to allow retrospective claims that would disrupt the practical arrangements the parties had followed.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court upheld the District Judge’s approach in varying the AM Orders to address uninsured medical expenses arising after the AM stage and to apportion those costs between the parents in proportion to their relative incomes. The court accepted that there was a material change in circumstances and that the earlier medical/dental provision did not clearly cover all uninsured medical payments that later arose.
On the past payments issue, the court’s reasoning indicates that it was not persuaded that the father should obtain retrospective entitlement beyond the monthly sum of $454.22, given the parties’ conduct and the practical manner in which the maintenance breakdown was implemented. The extract does not include the final dispositive paragraph(s) and the precise final orders on each ground, but the High Court’s analysis supports the conclusion that the appeal did not succeed in overturning the District Judge’s substantive maintenance variations.
Why Does This Case Matter?
VEV v VEW [2022] SGHCF 29 is a useful authority for practitioners dealing with variations of child maintenance orders in Singapore, particularly where the dispute concerns the allocation of uninsured medical costs. The case illustrates that “deductibles” and “out-of-pocket” expenses may not have been fully contemplated in earlier maintenance breakdowns, and that later healthcare events can constitute a material change in circumstances warranting variation.
From a doctrinal perspective, the decision reinforces two practical principles. First, courts will look beyond labels and examine what the earlier orders actually covered, including whether the existing allowance was intended to cover all uninsured medical payments. Second, courts will consider the parents’ relative financial positions and may apportion uninsured costs by reference to income ratios, even where the precise income documentation is incomplete, provided the court’s estimation is grounded in available evidence and the overall fairness of the outcome.
For litigators, the case is also instructive on retrospective claims. The High Court’s emphasis on acquiescence through conduct and on the welfare-oriented flexibility of maintenance spending by the care-giving parent suggests that parties should not assume that a court-ordered breakdown will be applied mechanically. Where parents have implemented maintenance in a particular way over time, courts may be reluctant to unwind those arrangements retrospectively, especially where the care parent has adjusted spending to meet the children’s needs.
Legislation Referenced
- Not stated in the provided extract.
Cases Cited
- [2022] SGHCF 29 (the present case; no other cited authorities are identifiable from the provided extract).
Source Documents
This article analyses [2022] SGHCF 29 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.