[2026] SGHCF 24

The parties agree that for the purpose of division of the matrimonial assets, the structured approach set out in ANJ v ANK [2015] 4 SLR 1043 (“ANJ v ANK”) applies as this was a dual-income marriage.

In undertaking the structured approach, the first step for the court is to determine the total value of the matrimonial pool. As set out in the parties’ Joint Summary of Positions (“JS”), there are 62 items to be considered by the court. In carrying out this exercise, the parties agree that the operative date for the identification of matrimonial assets and liabilities is the IJ date, ie, 26 September 2023. They further agree that the matrimonial assets and liabilities are to be valued at or close to the date of the AM hearing, ie, 13 May 2026. That said, moneys in the parties’ bank and Central Provident Fund (“CPF”) accounts are to be valued at or close to the IJ date as it is the moneys, and not the accounts themselves, which are the matrimonial assets (UYP v UYQ [2020] 3 SLR 683 at [4]). As for the relevant exchange rates to be applied to the assets valued in foreign currencies, these are also agreed (being US$1=S$0.7653; 1 Swiss Franc (“CHF”)=S$1.63).

Agreed assets

I begin by setting out the parties’ agreed assets in the table below (“Table of Agreed Assets”).

I now set out my decision on the disputed joint assets of the parties.

The Vested Options, however, are to be included in the pool. As set out in David Chan, it cannot be disputed that a stock option which is vested is a matrimonial asset as it confers on the optionee the right to purchase a specified number of shares at a specific price (at [17]). The Husband agrees that they are matrimonial assets. However, the Husband asks that an “if as and when” order be granted as he has not yet exercised these options. This approach, which is provided for under s 112(5)(e) of the Women’s Charter, has been affirmed in David Chan as being “entirely fair and sensible” given the “special situation” that these are only rights to purchase shares and such an order would not accord any “undue advantage” to either party (at [39]). In essence, such an order postpones the division of the options until they are exercised and profits are made. Indeed, there is also no direct information on the value of the Vested Options as the documentary evidence only provides the value of the Unvested Options. In the circumstances, I am of the view that an “if as and when” order on any net gain made by the Husband on the exercise of these options is appropriate here. Accordingly, the employee share options are not to be included in the pool for division.

By all of the above, I now set out a table of the disputed assets and liabilities of the Husband.

I now set out a table of the disputed assets of the Wife.

I now set out the final decision on the matrimonial pool.

Having considered the parties’ submissions, I find that the Husband and the Wife should be attributed 90% and 10% of the contributions respectively. As alluded to at [90] above, even if the Husband’s parents had financed 100% of the property, this was with a view to confer some benefit on the Wife as well. From the Husband’s mother’s evidence in OA 1349, the Wife was the one who first proposed the idea of acquiring a landed property for the families to live together. In this connection, the Husband’s mother’s evidence that the Wife was to hold 10% of the property only because that was the minimum ownership requirement so that the Wife’s name could be used to apply for the HSBC Loan is untenable. As observed by the court in OA 1349, there is nothing to suggest a minimum 10% ownership requirement for loan purposes. Registering ownership of a property in a 99:1 ratio is sufficient to take out a loan in joint names (see, for example, Wong Mei Lee Millie v Ngor Shing Rong Jake [2026] SGCA 27 at [1], [4] and [15]). It is thus far more likely that the Husband’s parents intended to confer some beneficial interest to the Wife by allowing her to be registered as an owner of 10% of the property. In so doing, their contributions to the Pavilion Property are also partially a gift to the Wife.

I turn now to the Hillington Property and the rental proceeds earned from it. The parties’ suggested direct contribution ratios are not far off from each other.

The property was purchased in 2006 for around S$678,000. The monthly mortgage payment is paid by the parties’ CPF. As a starting point, it is not disputed that the Wife contributed slightly more in terms of CPF moneys. The Wife relies on their CPF contributions to arrive at an attribution of 52.5% to herself and 47.5% to the Husband. The Husband includes other contributions in addition to their CPF contributions which I shall discuss below.

I now set out the court’s final decision on the direct contributions of the parties to the matrimonial assets.

By all the above, I now set out the final ratio for division.

I order the sale of the Hillington Property. This is appropriate, as the parties own the Hillington Property as joint tenants. The CPF refunds are to be made after the division of the sale proceeds. In CVC v CVB [2023] SGHC(A) 28 at [107], the court clarified that repayment of CPF moneys may be made (a) before dividing the sale proceeds, or (b) after dividing the proceeds, with payments to be made from each party’s share of the proceeds. Either approach is open to the court so long as the result in substance is that the total value of the share received by each party must reflect the final division ratios ordered. As the parties’ CPF contributions are not vastly different and such difference pales in comparison to the size of the matrimonial pool, I do not think either approach would substantially affect the outcome upon a sale and division of the proceeds.