...

Our Notable Cases

UUO v UUP [2019] SGFC 44

REPRESENTED BY

Walter Silvester
Email: walter@silvesterlegal.com

WHAT WE ACHIEVED

The Court dismissed the Plaintiff Husband’s claim for the division ratio to be 80:20 in his favour. As such, the Court ruled that the final ratio for division would remain at 54:46 in favour of the Husband. “

CASE SUMMARY

[Family Law – Divorce, division of matrimonial assets]

 

The Defendant was the Wife of the family. The parties were married for 18 years and this was that the second divorce proceeding filed by the Plaintiff Husband. The Plaintiff Husband in this case appealed against the previous court order which distributed the matrimonial assets in the proportion of 54:46 in the Husband’s favour and argued that that the ratio should instead be 80:20 in his favour. 

 

Mr Silvester resisted the argument and argued that the Plaintiff Husband was the one who always insisted on expenses between the couple to be split right down the middle for all outgoings. They also had a joint account for which they both contributed $1500 each, despite the Plaintiff Husband earning significantly more than the Defendant Wife. Mr Silvester also brought to the court’s attention that the Defendant Wife quit her job to be a fulltime housewife and that she put in her fair share of indirect contributions to the family. 

 

The Court took all of this into account, coupled with the stance that for long marriages with children, the division should incline towards equal division regardless of whether the family was a single income or a double income family. As such, the Court accepted the arguments that the matrimonial assets were built up collectively by both parties, and hence should not be divided as lopsidedly as the Plaintiff claims.