SINGAPORE Law and Practice Contributed by: Sim Bock Eng, Josephine Choo, Aw Wen Ni and Vincent Ho, WongPartnership LLP
treat such gifts and inheritances as part of the family’s assets in his emails and WhatsApp messages. The Court of Appeal held that the husband had demon - strated a clear and unambiguous intention that these monies constituted part of the family estate; the mon - ies had lost their character as a gift or inheritance and should therefore be regarded as matrimonial assets that are subject to division. The case of VOD v VOC [2022] SGHC(A) 6 also illus - trates that the context of how gifts are made in a matrimonial context will affect whether they form part of the matrimonial assets. In that case, at a custom - ary tea ceremony during the wedding, the groom’s father handed a hongpao (an auspicious gift of money packed into a red envelope) containing a cheque for SGD1 million in the groom’s name to the groom in the bride’s presence. In divorce proceedings some three years later, the couple disagreed whether the SGD1 million gift formed part of the matrimonial assets. The High Court held that this hongpao was intended by the groom’s father to benefit the couple, and not the groom alone. Amongst other things, the court found that the overt act of presenting the hongpao during a customary ceremony should be viewed objectively as a gift to the couple in the absence of evidence to the contrary and unless the nature of the gift suggested otherwise (there was no such suggestion in this case). The matrimonial assets are divided between the par - ties based on the parties’ direct and indirect (including non-financial) contributions to the acquisition of the matrimonial assets. In the event of a divorce, under Section 139M of the Women’s Charter 1961, the court has the power to set aside any disposition of property within the three years preceding the divorce application, if it is satis - fied that the disposition of the property was made with the object of reducing the means to pay mainte - nance or depriving a spouse of any rights in relation to property. Prenuptial and Postnuptial Agreements Prenuptial and postnuptial agreements have been upheld by the Singapore courts. These agreements must first satisfy the basic requirements of a contract, and the courts would look into the presence of any
vitiating factors that may undermine the existence of an agreement, such as fraud, duress, unconscionabil - ity, misrepresentation or undue influence. The courts will scrutinise the subject matter and terms of a pre - nuptial agreement, in accordance with the principles of justice and equity to both parties, before deciding how much weight to accord to such agreement. In CLB v CLC [2021] SGHCF 17, the court observed that, during the course of the 16-year marriage, the husband and wife had operated on a common understanding and practically managed their financial affairs in a way that was not fully consistent with the prenuptial agreement. As such, the court found that it would not be just and equitable to give full weight to the prenuptial agreement, and that whether each asset was to be included in the pool of matrimonial assets would depend on the circumstances and the relevant facts surrounding each asset. The matter was appealed twice, and in CLC v CLB [2023] SGCA 10, the Court of Appeal agreed that the assets in ques - tion were part of the family estate and were to be included in the pool of matrimonial assets available for division, notwithstanding the terms of the prenuptial agreement. A prenuptial agreement may be accorded much sig - nificance when it is entered into by foreign nationals who married under a community of property regime. In TQ v TR [2009] 2 SLR(R) 961, a Dutch citizen and a Swedish citizen executed a prenuptial agreement stating that there was to be no community of property, and were married under Dutch law. The couple moved to Singapore and the marriage subsequently broke down. The Court of Appeal held that the prenuptial agreement was wholly foreign in nature, dealt with the parties’ respective matrimonial assets only and was valid under Dutch law. Furthermore, there was suffi - cient evidence showing that the couple did not regard their marriage as being one that related to the concept of a community of property. In those circumstances, the Court of Appeal gave the prenuptial agreement the highest significance and made no orders as to the division of matrimonial assets. In the determination of issues ancillary to a divorce (ie, the division of matrimonial assets, the determina - tion of custody care and control of children, and the
498 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook