Our Notable Cases

Court of Appeal secures an increased share to the Plaintiff-Wife in a matrimonial dispute from the initial $65,000 to $117,665.73 from the matrimonial pool

REPRESENTED BY

Walter Silvester
Email: walter@silvesterlegal.com

Tan Hoe Shuen
Email: hoeshuen@silvesterlegal.com

WHAT WE ACHIEVED

“Mr Low and Mr Tan successfully represented the Plaintiff in the initial trial as well as the subsequent appeals. This allowed the Plaintiff Wife to receive a substantially greater amount from the matrimonial pool as compared to what she was initially entitled to.”

CASE SUMMARY

VJP v VJQ [2020] SGFC 62 / VJQ v VJP [2020] SGHCF 13 / VJP v VJQ [2021] 2 SLR 1041, [2021] SGCA 82

[Family Law – divorce, assessment of maintenance, division of matrimonial assets, maintenance of children, custody, care and control of the children, maintenance of the Plaintiff Wife]

The Plaintiff was the Wife and the Defendant was the Husband of the marriage. Mr Low and subsequently, Mr Tan from Silvester Legal LLC represented the Plaintiff Wife during the trial and the various appeals.

Mr Low argued for the Plaintiff Wife by stating that the ratio of indirect contribution to the household by both parties should be in favour of the Plaintiff because of how she took no-pay leave for a year to take care of the children while the Defendant Husband was flying for his job. The trial Court held that the ratio should be 55:45 in favour of the Plaintiff Wife. The Court ordered for joint custody as there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant sole custody and the Wife was not given maintenance as she was deemed to earn enough. However, the Court accepted Mr Low’s argument that the Defendant should pay for the children’s maintenance as he earned more than the Plaintiff. The Court lastly also ordered for the matrimonial home to be transferred from the Plaintiff to the Defendant in return of $65,000.

Upon the first appeal to the High Court, the Defendant appealed against the previous decision to include the “Primefield” shares to be included in the matrimonial assets as well as the sum of the undisbursed housing loan. These amounted to a total of $316,250. The High Court accepted the appeal and ordered for these variations to be made to the previous court order.

At the final appeal to the Court of Appeal, Mr Low and Mr Tan represented the Plaintiff Wife in appealing for a re-computation of the distribution of the matrimonial assets as certain assets that were initially included by the lower court were subsequently excluded. Ultimately, the Plaintiff was successful in her appeal and was entitled to 44.8% of the reduced matrimonial pool. This was a substantial increase from $65,000 to $117,665.73 as a result of this adjustment.