WHAT WE ACHIEVED
“The Court ordered that the Defendant Husband has to transfer his interests, rights and share in the matrimonial home to the Plaintiff Wife for the sum of $145,000 within three months of the date of the order. If the transfer is not done, the Plaintiff Wife’s rights, interests and shares has to be transferred to the Defendant Husband instead for the sum of $295,000.
If neither transfer is done, the matrimonial home is to be surrendered with the remaining funds to be divided 80% in favour of the Plaintiff Wife and 20% in favour of the Defendant Husband. Mr Low successfully represented the Plaintiff Wife to ensure that the Court was made well aware of her numerous contributions to the marriage.”
[Family Law – divorce, care and control of children of a marriage]
The Plaintiff was the Wife of the marriage whereas the Defendant was the Husband. The Defendant argued that although the matrimonial property was paid for using the funds of the Plaintiff Wife’s bank account, he was the one who gave her the funds. Mr Low argued for the Plaintiff and stated that the Plaintiff supplemented the funds with not only her own income, but also via loans from her family and the liquidation of co-owned shares that she held with her brother. As a result, the Court accepted $105,361.92 as the Wife’s direct cash contribution, with the remaining $221,975.75 to be attributed equally to both parties.
Mr Low also successfully argued for the indirect contributions to be set at 55:45 in favour of the Wife. He brought particular attention to how the Wife stood by and supported the Defendant Husband even when he got into debt with illegal moneylenders. Ultimately, the Court found that because the marriage was sufficiently long, the weightage of direct and indirect contributions to the marriage should be taken as equal.