Case Details
- Citation: [2022] SGHCF 29
- Title: VEV v VEW
- Court: High Court (Family Division)
- Division/Proceeding: General Division of the High Court (Family Division)
- 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 (Father/Appellant)
- Defendant/Respondent: VEW (Mother/Respondent)
- Legal Area: Family Law — Maintenance — Child
- Procedural History (key dates): Interim judgment for divorce granted on 5 March 2019; ancillary matters orders (“AM Orders”) made on 8 October 2019; High Court orders on appeal made on 11 March 2021; variation application filed after appeal as FC/SUM 3151/2021; District Judge’s grounds of decision issued on 14 March 2022; further orders made on 6 April 2022
- Children: Two children, aged seven and five
- Custody/Access (post-appeal): Joint custody; care and control to the Wife; access to the Husband
- Core Orders under appeal (as described): (i) From 1 April 2022, uninsured medical “deductibles”/uncovered medical expenses shared 75:25 by Husband:Wife; (ii) Wife solely responsible for $454.22 being the children’s insurance premium from 14 March 2022, with Husband paying the insurer directly and deducting $454.22 from maintenance; (iii) Husband not retrospectively entitled to amounts beyond $454.22 from the AM Orders date until 14 March 2022; (iv) costs to Husband of $1,500 (exclusive of disbursements)
- Issues on appeal (as framed): “Deductibles Issue”; “Past Payments Issue”; “Costs Issue”
- Cases Cited: [2022] SGHCF 29 (as provided in metadata)
- Judgment Length: 9 pages, 2,357 words
Summary
VEV v VEW concerned a father’s appeal in the High Court (Family Division) against a District Judge’s decision varying child maintenance-related orders for the children’s healthcare costs. The dispute arose after the parties’ divorce and ancillary matters proceedings, and specifically after the mother applied to vary the maintenance arrangements for the children’s insurance premiums and uninsured medical expenses (including so-called “deductibles” and other out-of-pocket costs not covered by insurance).
The High Court (Choo Han Teck J) upheld the District Judge’s approach in principle. The court accepted that there had been a material change in circumstances after the AM Orders, because uninsured medical costs had arisen for the first time in a significant way following medical consultations and screenings. It also endorsed the District Judge’s method of allocating uninsured expenses between the parents in proportion to their relative earning capacities, concluding that it was fair for the parties to bear the uninsured costs according to their relative incomes. On the “Past Payments Issue”, the High Court found insufficient evidence of express acquiescence to a higher insurance figure ordered at the AM stage, and it treated the parties’ practical payment conduct as relevant. The appeal was dismissed (subject to the truncated extract provided), and the practical effect was that the variation orders remained in place.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The parties were married in Italy on 14 July 2011. The father (the appellant) was 49 years old and worked as a mediator, counsel, and arbitrator; he was an English barrister with dual citizenship (United Kingdom and Australia) and was also a Singapore permanent resident. The mother (the respondent) was 39 years old and worked part-time as a pre-school teacher and as a director of a handmade-chocolate company. Both parties had law-related educational backgrounds, with the mother holding a law degree and a master’s degree in law, and both parties had dual citizenship (the mother in the United Kingdom and Ireland).
They had 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, and the father appealed against the entirety of those AM Orders. On appeal, the High Court Family Division made orders on 11 March 2021, awarding joint custody of the children, with care and control to the mother and access to the father.
After the conclusion of the appeal, the mother filed a variation application in the Family Justice Courts: FC/SUM 3151/2021 (“SUM 3151”). The mother sought to vary the children’s maintenance arrangements, focusing on who should bear excess or uninsured medical expenses not covered by insurance. In particular, she sought an order that the father should be solely responsible for certain excess medical expenses that were not covered by insurance. 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.
In the District Judge’s decision, several key findings were made. First, the court assessed the father’s income and earning capacity. Although the father produced an IRAS notice of assessment in June 2021 showing income of $4,300 per month, the District Judge inferred that his expenses exceeded his declared income and therefore took the view that there may have been undeclared income. The District Judge then used the father’s average income over a longer period, arriving at an average of $8,575 per month. The mother’s income was assessed at $3,000 per month.
Second, the District Judge ordered that, with effect from 1 April 2022, uninsured medical expenses not covered by insurers—described as “deductibles”—would be shared between the parties in the proportion of 75:25 (father to mother) in accordance with their income ratio. Third, in relation to insurance payments, the District Judge ordered that the mother would be solely responsible for $454.22, representing the children’s medical insurance premium from 14 March 2022. The father was to make direct payment to the children’s health insurance provider and then deduct an agreed sum of $454.22 from the maintenance he paid to the mother for the children. Fourth, the District Judge held that the father was not retrospectively entitled to amounts in excess of $454.22 from the date of the AM Orders until 14 March 2022, reasoning that the parties had acquiesced through their conduct and that it would be inequitable to allow retrospective claims. Finally, the District Judge awarded the father costs of $1,500 (exclusive of disbursements).
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The appeal raised three principal issues. The first was the “Deductibles Issue”: whether the District Judge was wrong to vary the AM Orders by requiring the parties to pay for “deductibles” (or, more broadly, uninsured/out-of-pocket medical expenses not covered by insurance) in a 75:25 ratio. The father argued that the deductibles question had already been dealt with in the AM proceedings and that there had been no material change of circumstances to justify a variation. He also contended that the District Judge widened the scope of what the mother sought, moving beyond deductibles to include other out-of-pocket expenses not covered by policies.
The second issue was the “Past Payments Issue”: whether the District Judge was wrong to order that the father was not retrospectively entitled to any amounts in excess of $454.22 from the date of the AM Orders until 14 March 2022. The father’s argument was that the practical effect was to deprive him of reimbursement and to give the mother a “windfall” by allowing her to allocate funds elsewhere. The High Court had to consider what the parties had agreed or acquiesced to, and whether the evidence supported the District Judge’s conclusion.
The third issue was the “Costs Issue”: whether the award of costs to the father of $1,500 (exclusive of disbursements) was manifestly low. Although the extract provided does not include the full reasoning on costs, the issue required the High Court to consider whether the District Judge’s costs award fell outside the range of reasonable discretion.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
On the Deductibles Issue, the High Court began with the threshold question of whether there was a material change in circumstances warranting a variation of the maintenance orders. The court accepted that there was such a change. The judge reasoned that after the AM Orders, the parties had to deal with deductibles and uninsured medical costs for the first time in a meaningful way, arising from the children’s medical needs—specifically, the daughter’s visit to a neurologist for a medical examination and the son’s health screening. This factual development meant that the maintenance framework created at the AM stage had not fully anticipated the later uninsured costs that actually arose.
The father argued that the deductibles question had already been considered in the AM proceedings, pointing to the AM Orders’ provision of $20 per month for “[m]edical/dental” expenses. The High Court addressed this by focusing on what was actually before the District Judge in SUM 3151. The District Judge had treated the deductibles as presented during the variation proceedings, which were about $175 for both children, and had considered those amounts significant enough that they were not expressly covered below. The High Court agreed with this approach, concluding that while there was a general allowance for medical/dental expenses, there was no indication that it was intended to cover all uninsured medical payments that later emerged. Accordingly, the later uninsured costs constituted a material change.
Having found a material change, the court then considered whether it was correct to allocate uninsured expenses in proportion to the parents’ relative incomes (75:25). The father challenged the use of his earning capacity figure of $8,575 rather than his present income of $4,300. The High Court noted 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 had taken into account past records showing earning capacity above $4,300 per month. The High Court found that, given incomplete documentation, it was not wrong for the District Judge to make a general estimate rather than rely solely on present income.
The High Court also endorsed the District Judge’s comparative assessment of the parents’ ability to bear uninsured expenses. It was relevant that the father was a successful commercial barrister with multiple income streams, including investment and rental property, whereas the mother’s earning capacity was comparatively limited at the relevant time. The judge accepted the District Judge’s view that 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 according to their relative incomes. The court also noted the practical safeguard that the parties could apply for further variation if the mother’s income improved.
On the Past Payments Issue, the High Court examined the District Judge’s conclusion that the father was not retrospectively entitled to amounts beyond $454.22 from the date of the AM Orders until 14 March 2022. The father’s argument relied on the AM Orders’ earlier determination that monthly health insurance should be $248 per child, totalling $496 per month. He contended that the mother would benefit from a windfall because the District Judge’s later figure of $454.22 was lower, and the father had been paying the lower amount for a period of time.
The High Court’s analysis turned on evidence of acquiescence. The judge stated that the court could not find evidence that the parties had expressly acquiesced to $454.22. However, the judge observed that the parties’ practice appeared to be that the father paid the insurance directly and then deducted an agreed sum from the maintenance paid to the mother. Since the father consistently deducted $454.22 from November 2019 to March 2022, the judge considered that this could be treated as acquiescence to the insurance sum being $454.22 rather than $496 as ordered by the court.
The High Court also considered the mother’s explanation for choosing a cheaper policy. She had selected a policy to better manage her expenses for the children and to allocate funds for uncovered medical expenses, particularly because the AM Orders did not provide a specific breakdown for uninsured medical costs. The High Court emphasised a key practical principle: while maintenance is determined by the court, the specific breakdown of how the maintenance sum should be spent should not be rigidly regulated. The parent with care and control is entitled to adjust spending based on what is in the welfare of the children, having regard to day-to-day needs. On that basis, the High Court agreed that there was no need for the mother to be compelled to account for the difference retrospectively, and it upheld the District Judge’s approach.
Although the extract ends before the full discussion of the Costs Issue, the structure of the judgment indicates that the High Court considered whether the District Judge’s costs award was manifestly low. In family proceedings, costs awards are often discretionary and sensitive to the parties’ conduct and the outcome. The High Court would therefore have assessed whether the District Judge’s figure fell within the proper range of discretion.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court upheld the District Judge’s variation orders relating to the children’s uninsured medical expenses and insurance premium arrangements. In practical terms, the court maintained the allocation of uninsured medical “deductibles”/uncovered costs from 1 April 2022 on a 75:25 basis (father to mother), reflecting the parents’ relative earning capacities. It also maintained the approach that the father was not retrospectively entitled to amounts beyond $454.22 from the date of the AM Orders until 14 March 2022, given the parties’ payment practice and the absence of clear evidence of express agreement to the higher AM-stage figure.
The appeal was therefore not successful. The practical effect for the parties was that the children’s healthcare cost-sharing framework created by the District Judge remained operative, and the father’s challenge to both the forward-looking allocation and the retrospective accounting was rejected.
Why Does This Case Matter?
VEV v VEW is a useful authority for practitioners dealing with variations of child maintenance orders in Singapore, particularly where the dispute concerns healthcare costs that are partly insured and partly uninsured. The case illustrates that “deductibles” and other uninsured medical expenses may not be fully captured by a general medical/dental allowance in earlier orders, and that later medical events can constitute a material change in circumstances justifying variation.
Substantively, the decision also confirms that courts may allocate uninsured expenses in proportion to the parents’ relative earning capacities, especially where one parent’s ability to bear such costs is materially different. The High Court’s endorsement of the District Judge’s income estimation approach is also instructive: where complete documentation is not provided, the court may rely on past records and reasonable estimates rather than insist on a single snapshot of present income.
From a litigation strategy perspective, the Past Payments Issue highlights the evidential importance of how parties actually implement court orders. Even in the absence of express acquiescence, consistent payment conduct can support a finding that parties effectively treated a particular figure as the operative amount. Practitioners should therefore advise clients to keep clear records of insurance premium changes, payment arrangements, and any communications about deviations from earlier court-determined figures. Finally, the case underscores the court’s reluctance to rigidly regulate how the care parent spends maintenance, provided the spending is directed to the children’s welfare and is consistent with the maintenance framework.
Legislation Referenced
- (Not specified in the provided judgment extract.)
Cases Cited
- [2022] SGHCF 29 (as provided in metadata)
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.