Man gets $1.3m more in divorce after appeal over $13.2m in assets

A man who was initially awarded a 55 per cent share of $13.2 million in matrimonial assets following a divorce will now get $1.3 million more, after he partly succeeded in his appeal.

On Nov 18, the Appellate Division of the High Court increased the man’s share of the assets to 65 per cent.

The court gave more weight to the man’s indirect contributions to the family, and determined that the average ratio should be 60:40 in the man’s favour.

The court then shifted the ratio by 5 per cent in the man’s favour, after taking into account that a substantial portion of the pool of matrimonial assets consists of his assets he had acquired before marriage.

The man, a successful banker, had at least $5.4 million in savings when he got married. He mixed this money with income he earned during the 10-year marriage, and used the commingled funds to pay household expenses.

In 2023, a High Court judge rejected the man’s argument that his pre-marriage funds should be excluded from the pool of matrimonial assets to be divided.

This was because the man could not produce the relevant bank statements to show how specific assets can be attributed to his pre-marriage funds.

The pool comprises assets worth $7.1 million in the husband’s name, assets worth $3.9 million in the wife’s name, and joint assets worth $2.2 million.

Although the man could not trace specific assets, the three judges of the Appellate Division accepted that he was able to show that a sizeable portion of the pool was attributable to his pre-marriage funds.

The man was able to provide bank statements from 2010 to show that at the time of the marriage, he had the equivalent of at least $5.4 million in his bank accounts.

The judges also found it improbable that the $13.2 million pool of assets can be attributed solely to income earned or investment yields during their marriage, especially given that the man semi-retired three years into the marriage.

Had the man kept records of transactions throughout the marriage or kept his pre-marriage money separate from marital funds, he might have been in a better position to prove which assets were pre-marriage assets, said the court.

“But such behaviour is not what should be encouraged in marriage. 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.”

The judges said the man’s conduct in this respect was consistent with the ideals of mutual cooperation to safeguard the interests of the union, and to care and provide for the children as set out in the Women’s Charter.

In this context, it seemed “ironic”, said the court, that a person who is not calculative in providing for the family and does not keep records may be worse off financially in the event of a divorce than someone who ringfences assets from the matrimonial estate.

The court said the approach it has taken in this case should minimise the incentive for parties in similar situations to engage in a calculative exercise of tracing assets in the hope of proving that certain assets are derived from pre-marriage assets.

However, divorcing parties should not see this as an incentive to make similar arguments without cogent evidence, the court added.

The couple in the current case married in Hong Kong in 2010.

The man was then 44 years old and had a successful career as a banker. The woman, then 29 years old, was starting out in the finance industry.

They have two children, who are now aged 14 and 11.

The family moved to Singapore in 2012. The man partially retired in 2013, while the woman continued with her career.

The man filed for divorce on April 1, 2020. After interim judgment was granted on Sept 29, 2020, the couple tussled over the children, assets and maintenance.

In November 2023, a High Court judge divided assets worth $13.2 million between the man and woman in the ratio of 55 per cent and 45 per cent respectively.

The judge rejected the man’s argument that money in several Hong Kong bank accounts should be excluded because they were primarily derived from his income before the marriage.

The couple were awarded joint custody of the children. The woman was granted sole care and control, which means the children live with her, while the man is allowed access to them.

The man was ordered to pay $2,980 a month as maintenance for both children. No maintenance was ordered for the woman.

The man, who was represented by Mr Clement Yap and Ms Charis Sim of Harry Elias Partnership, appealed on access to the children and division of assets.

He challenged the judge’s refusal to grant an order for the woman to drop the children off at his home at the start of his period of access, and to leave the vicinity for the rest of that period.

He contended that the judge had undervalued his indirect contributions, both as the spouse responsible for paying most of the household expenses and as a stay-at-home father after his semi-retirement. 

He also argued that the judge was wrong in failing to adopt his proposed methodology to divide the money in his Hong Kong bank accounts.

The man’s appeal with respect to the access orders and the ratio of indirect contributions were partly allowed, while his argument on methodology was rejected.