[2015] SGCA 52

“respect of which the applicable framework for division is that set out in ANJ v ANK [2015] 4 SLR 1043. As summarised by the Court of Appeal in Twiss Christopher James Hans v Twiss Yvonne Prendergast [2015] SGCA 52 at [17], this approach involves three broad steps:”

“loan instalments, it ought to be considered as belonging jointly to the Parties, as it was income earned on an asset that was jointly owned: Twiss, Christopher James Hans v Twiss, Yvonne Prendergast [2015] SGCA 52 at [18].”

“The Wife cited the cases of Twiss, Christopher James Hans v Twiss, Yvonne Prendergast [2015] SGCA 52 (“Twiss”) and ARY ([16] supra) to support her submissions of a ratio of 80:20 in her favour. In Twiss, the Court of Appeal found (at [20]) that the husband’s and wife’s contributions were roughly equ”

“The Husband’s alternative argument is likewise without merit. In our view, the Judge was entitled to rely on Twiss, Christopher James Hans v Twiss, Yvonne Prendergast [2015] SGCA 52 (“Twiss”) where the Court of Appeal held (at [18]) that rental proceeds which had been derived from renting out the parties’ jointly-owned”

“Another case that bears some similar features to the present one is that of Twiss, Christopher James Hans v Twiss, Yvonne Prendergast [2015] SGCA 52 (“Twiss”). This case involved a marriage of 20 years with two children to the marriage. The husband and wife’s contributions were roughly equal in the first decade of marr”

“rties’ non-financial contributions. It would be useful to first set out the ANJ framework. In this regard, as the Court of Appeal observed in Twiss, Christopher James Hans v Twiss, Yvonne Prendergast [2015] SGCA 52 at [17]:”

“d be appropriate. She raises several cases in which the court allocated the wife 70% or more for her indirect contributions. For instance, in Twiss, Christopher James Hans v Twiss, Yvonne Prendergast [2015] SGCA 52, the parties had two children and their marriage lasted 20 years. The court awarded the wife 75% of the i”

“ceeds being earned on an asset which is jointly owned ought to be considered as belonging jointly to the parties and split evenly (relying on Twiss, Christopher James Hans v Twiss, Yvonne Prendergast [2015] SGCA 52 (“Twiss”) at [18]). Accordingly, it cannot be assumed that the Husband would have been entitled to all of”

“of the other party and finally deriving the parties’ overall contributions relative to each other by taking an average of the two ratios (see Twiss, Christopher James Hans v Twiss, Yvonne Prendergast [2015] SGCA 52 at [17]). In TNL v TNK [2017] 1 SLR 609 (“TNL”), the CA had the occasion to revisit ANJ. In particular, t”

“In ANJ v ANK, the Court of Appeal set out a structured approach to the division of assets (at [22]–[27]) which was later summarised in Twiss, Christopher James Hans v Twiss, Yvonne Prendergast [2015] SGCA 52 at [17]. The approach set out in these decisions may be summarised as follows:”

“J v ANK”) (at [22]–[26]) to work out a just and equitable division of matrimonial assets. This approach, may be summarised, with reference to Twiss, Christopher James Hans v Twiss, Yvonne Prendergast [2015] SGCA 52 at [17] and ANJ v ANK at [28], as follows:”

“pool, using the structured approach set out in ANJ v ANK [2015] 4 SLR 1043 (“ANJ v ANK”). This approach, may be summarised, with reference to Twiss, Christopher James Hans v Twiss, Yvonne Prendergast [2015] SGCA 52 (at [17]) and ANJ v ANK (at [28]), as follows:”

“ANJ v ANK (at [22]–[26]) to work out a just and equitable division of matrimonial assets. This approach, may be summarised, with reference to Twiss, Christopher James Hans v Twiss, Yvonne Prendergast [2015] SGCA 52 at [17] and ANJ v ANK at [28], as follows:”

“(at [17]–[30]) to determine a just and equitable division of matrimonial assets. This approach may be summarised as follows (see ANJ at [36]; Twiss, Christopher James Hans v Twiss, Yvonne Prendergast [2015] SGCA 52 at [17]):”

“NJ”) (at [17]–[30]) to work out a just and equitable division of matrimonial assets. This approach may be summarised as follows (ANJ at [36]; Twiss, Christopher James Hans v Twiss, Yvonne Prendergast [2015] SGCA 52 at [17]):”

“determine a just and equitable division of matrimonial assets. This approach may be summarised as follows (see ANJ v ANK at [22]–[26], [28]; Twiss, Christopher James Hans v Twiss, Yvonne Prendergast [2015] SGCA 52 (“Twiss”) at [17]):”

“determine a just and equitable division of matrimonial assets. This approach may be summarised as follows (see ANJ v ANK at [22]–[26], [28]; Twiss, Christopher James Hans v Twiss, Yvonne Prendergast [2015] SGCA 52 (“Twiss”) at [17]):”

“The Court of Appeal’s structured approach, first set out ANJ (at [17]–[30]), was summarised in three broad steps set out in Twiss, Christopher James Hans v Twiss, Yvonne Prendergast [2015] SGCA 52 (at [17]), and reiterated recently in TNL v TNK at [37], as follows:”

“determine a just and equitable division of matrimonial assets. This approach may be summarised as follows (see ANJ v ANK at [22]–[26], [28]; Twiss, Christopher James Hans v Twiss, Yvonne Prendergast [2015] SGCA 52 (“Twiss”) at [17]):”

“The structured approach, first set out ANJ v ANK (at [17]–[30]), was summarised into three broad steps set out in Twiss, Christopher James Hans v Twiss, Yvonne Prendergast [2015] SGCA 52 (at [17]), and reiterated recently in TNL v TNK at [38], as follows:”

“e structured approach, first set out ANJ v ANK [2015] 4 SLR 1043 (“ANJ v ANK”) (at [17]–[30]), was summarised in three broad steps set out in Twiss, Christopher James Hans v Twiss, Yvonne Prendergast [2015] SGCA 52 (at [17]), as follows:”

“The structured approach, as set out ANJ v ANK [2015] 4 SLR 1043 (“ANJ v ANK”) (at [17]–[30]), was summarised in three broad steps set out in Twiss, Christopher James Hans v Twiss, Yvonne Prendergast [2015] SGCA 52 (at [17]), as follows:”

“ich go toward the “improvement of the matrimonial asset”: TNK v TNL and another appeal and another matter [2017] 1 SLR 0609 at [38] affirming Twiss, Christopher James Hans v Twiss, Yvonne Prendergast [2015] SGCA 52 at [17(a)].”