Case Study

The Court ruled expenses on the matrimonial property being sold on the open market to be borne by both parties proportionately as per their shares

Represented By

Walter Silvester

WHAT WE ACHIEVED

“The Court held that the Defendant had 3 months to acquire the Plaintiff’s share of the Property, failing which it would be sold on the open market. The Defendant would also be responsible for the relevant expenses from the date of the order.

However, The Defendant’s appeal on 31 July 2019 was subsequently successful and the ancillary order was set aside with new orders made.”

CASE SUMMARY

UUE v UUF [2019] SGFC 29

[Family Law – divorce, division of matrimonial assets]

The Plaintiff was the Husband and the Defendant was the Wife of the marriage. The Defendant Husband was appealing against various aspects of the ancillary orders given for their divorce, and was hoping to get a variation for the said ancillary orders for the division of assets.

Mr Silvester argued using the principles of AYM v AYL, that the Court should not re-open or revisit an order of court that was made regarding the division of matrimonial assets when it had already been completely implemented, other than in the limited cases of fraud. Mr Silvester also successfully argued that the Defendant should still be responsible for bearing the expenses of the property pursuant to the ancillary order. This was because he was the party for which the property was supposed to be transferred to. On this note, the Court ruled that in the event that the property was to be sold on the open market, the expenses should be borne by both parties in proportion to their shares in the matrimonial property.

Back to Case Study
Hey there! Ask me anything!