BG v BF

BG v BF

Access orders were left undisturbed because they were within the judge’s discretionary assessment of the children’s best interests and not plainly wrong; US$136,354 remains part of the matrimonial pool because Husband failed to satisfactorily explain the origin/recording of that sum; the income tax liability of $59,743.94 is deductible from the pool as evidenced by two IR8A forms and account records; the Carlotta property and its sale proceeds are trust property acquired before marriage and not matrimonial assets; sale proceeds (realised value) govern division for Bionutrics and Valencia shares except where sale price is not credible for Valencia, in which case Nasdaq close price at...

Citation
[2007] SGCA 32
Parties
Husband: BG; Wife: BF
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
25 May 2007
Case Number
CA 138/2006, 139/2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Ancillary Matters (custody, Access, Matrimonial Assets, Maintenance)
Outcome
Appeals allowed in part and dismissed in part: Husband’s appeal allowed only to permit deduction of $59,743.94 tax; all other challenges by Husband and all appeals by Wife dismissed; costs: each party to bear own costs; consequential orders to follow.
Legal Topics
Custody, Access, Matrimonial Assets, Trusts, Division of Assets, Maintenance, Disclosure, Best Interests of Child, Appellate Review
Source Language
English
Family Law Custody Access Matrimonial Assets Trusts Division of Assets Maintenance Disclosure +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BG

Husband

BF

Wife

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Ancillary Matters (custody, Access, Matrimonial Assets, Maintenance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extended weekend and Christmas holiday access orders were in children’s best interests and whether appellate court should interfere
  2. 2 Whether sum of US$136,354 formed part of matrimonial assets
  3. 3 Whether Husband may deduct income tax liability of $59,743.94 from matrimonial pool

Ratio Decidendi

Access orders were left undisturbed because they were within the judge’s discretionary assessment of the children’s best interests and not plainly wrong; US$136,354 remains part of the matrimonial pool because Husband failed to satisfactorily explain the origin/recording of that sum; the income tax liability of $59,743.94 is deductible from the pool as evidenced by two IR8A forms and account records; the Carlotta property and its sale proceeds are trust property acquired before marriage and not matrimonial assets; sale proceeds (realised value) govern division for Bionutrics and Valencia shares except where sale price is not credible for Valencia, in which case Nasdaq close price at...

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed in part and dismissed in part: Husband’s appeal allowed only to permit deduction of $59,743.94 tax; all other challenges by Husband and all appeals by Wife dismissed; costs: each party to bear own costs; consequential orders to follow.

Orders

  • Husband’s appeal allowed insofar as $59,743.94 income tax is deductible from the matrimonial assets
  • Husband’s appeals dismissed in all other respects including challenge to 40% division and maintenance orders