The great asset debate: Navigating divorce in single vs dual income families in Singapore

When a marriage ends in Singapore, one of the most significant issues to resolve is how to fairly divide the couple's assets. Unlike some other jurisdictions, Singapore’s courts don’t start with the assumption that everything should be split equally. Instead, judges have wide discretion to decide what is just and equitable, taking into account a variety of factors unique to each case. 

This article will explore how the Singapore courts approach this complex issue, particularly how they decide whether a marriage should be treated as a single-income or dual-income marriage. This distinction can have a substantial impact on the division of assets, making it crucial for those involved in divorce proceedings to understand the legal principles at play. 

Since the seminal case of TNL v TNK [2017] 1 SLR 609 (“TNL”), the approach the Court will apply is different depending on whether the marriage in question is characterized as a single income marriage, or a dual income marriage. 

In the latter case, the Court will apply a structured approach whereby it arrives at the appropriate proportion for division with reference to the ratios of the parties' direct financial contributions towards the matrimonial assets and their indirect contributions towards the family. Whereas, for a single income marriage, the Court adopts a broad-brush approach having regard to both the direct and indirect contributions, alongside all the facts of the case. 

Guidance was given very shortly after the decision in TNL, by the Family Division of the High Court in UBM v UBN [2017] 4 SLR 921 ("UBM"). In its judgement, the Court encouraged parties not to nit-pick over whether a marriage is a single income or a dual income marriage, because in any event the Court's power to divide assets is to be exercised in broad strokes. 

Notwithstanding this, litigants have often fought to have their marriage characterized as either a single income or dual income marriage due to perceived benefits for division in their case. As such, this distinction has generated an abundance of case law. 

A recent decision from the Appellate Division of the High Court in DBA v DBB [2024] SGHC(A) 12 ("DBA") proffers some clarity and guidance as to when a marriage should be characterized as a single income marriage. 

When will a marriage be regarded as being a single income marriage?

The parties in DBA had been married for 31 years and had 3 children, the youngest of whom was 15 years of age at the time of the judgement. The Court below had determined that this was a dual income marriage, and applied the structured approach to arrive at the decision that the wife was entitled to just 22.5% of the assets. 

However, the Appellate Division held that the marriage should have been regarded as a single income marriage because it found that the wife was primarily the caregiver. The Court clarified that the fact that one party has worked at times during the marriage will not necessarily convert the marriage into a dual income marriage.  

In this case the wife had worked part time as an insurance agent for the first 6 years of the marriage. Following the birth of their first child, the wife's career had taken a back seat and she prioritized caring for the children. In the 20 years which followed, the wife worked full time for just 2 years, and otherwise undertook ad hoc and temp work, and operated her own home-based business. Overall, the wife had earned approximately 3% of the income generated by the husband in the course of the marriage.

The Appellate Division explained that the focus of the analysis and the central question to be answered is whether one party is "primarily" the caregiver. In this case the Court was satisfied that this was the wife's primary role in the family, and that accordingly the structured approach should not be applied. 

On this basis, the Court determined that the wife was in fact entitled to 40% of the matrimonial assets, which were worth approximately S$7 million. Therefore, the difference in the Court's characterization of the marriage resulted in the wife receiving approximately S$1.225 million more in the division of assets on appeal.  

The Court's approach to a mixed employment history 

Ultimately, the Court's consideration of whether a marriage is a single or dual income marriage will very much depend on the facts of the case at hand. 

In the case of WSY v WSX [2024] SGHCF 21 ("WSY") the parties had been married for 19 years and had a 14-year-old daughter and twins girls aged 11. The Court below held that this was a single income marriage, and that equal division was the appropriate starting point for an equitable division of the matrimonial assets. 

The wife had worked full time from 2003 to 2012. Following the birth of the twins, she had worked for a partnership owned jointly by the parties from 2014 to 2021. Although she had not drawn a salary from the partnership, the wife had benefited from the profits of the business. It was undisputed the husband was the primary breadwinner for the family, and that he often had to travel for work during the marriage.  

On appeal, the parties disagreed as to the characterization of the marriage. The husband argued that it was a dual income marriage, and that the structed approach ought to apply. The wife argued it was a single income marriage, and that the lower Court was correct in finding that equal division was the appropriate starting point. 

The Family Division of the High Court held that the wife could not be said to be primarily a homemaker because she had been attending to the partnership business from 10am to 7pm for 9 years during the marriage. 

The Court held that notwithstanding this, the lower Court's decision that equal division would be an appropriate starting point would still lead to a just and equitable division of assets – as even an application of the structured approach would achieve a result which would hover around equal division. Therefore, despite its own findings, the Court found that there was no reason to disturb the decision of the Court below to classify the marriage as a long single-income marriage. 

This case is demonstrative of the fact that in appropriate cases the characterization of the marriage, and therefore the appropriate methodology to be adopted, may make little or no difference in terms of the court's ultimate assessment of what would be a fair division of the matrimonial assets. 

A gender-neutral approach  

Finally, the recent case of WXW v WXX [2024] SGHCF 24 ("WXW") highlights the fact that the Court's approach towards the division of assets is gender neutral, and the characterization of dual or single income marriages looks to achieve a result which is just and equitable for the particularities of the family in each case. 

WXW concerned a marriage of some 34 years, with 3 adult children. The wife had always worked full time, and earned just shy of S$400,000 a year. The husband had left his full-time job in banking in 1997. Since that time, he had made various entrepreneurial efforts including running a laundry service, planning weddings, and operating a fried noodle stall.

The wife argued that she was entitled to 80% of the matrimonial assets based on an application of the structured approach, whereas the husband took the position that he was entitled to 50% by virtue of this being a long single income marriage. 

Ultimately, the Family Division of the High Court agreed with the husband that this was a long single income marriage, and on this basis found that he was entitled to 40% of the pool of matrimonial assets.  

The Court was satisfied that the husband was primarily a homemaker, and emphasized that the Court will not adopt a "mechanistic lens" when assessing parties' day-to-day contributions towards the family, focusing instead on the big picture and the qualitative roles played by each party. The Court referred to DBA, and reiterated that the mere fact of one spouse having had intermittent employment does not preclude them from being primarily a homemaker. 

The Court also emphasized that finding that one party was the "primary homemaker" does not diminish the other party's efforts, and it is merely an indication that the parties had distinct roles in the family which together allowed for the operation of a family unit. 

Conclusion 

What emerges from these recent cases is that whether a marriage is categorized as a single income or dual income marriage can have an impact in the appropriate circumstances. However, depending on the facts of the case at hand, this characterization will not necessarily make a material difference to the final outcome given the Court's overarching aim to achieve a just and equitable division of assets. 

The key question to be answered is what the parties' primary roles have been during the course of the marriage. When there has been a blurring of these roles, insofar as one party has worked intermittently, an application of either the structured approach or the broad-brush approach may well yield a similar result. 

As such, parties should not focus on legal words of art, and instead ought to concentrate on presenting their evidence as to the nature and quality of their contributions towards the family. Ultimately, it is most important that parties receive formal legal advice from a family law specialist, in order to guide them as to what may constitute an equitable division of assets in their case. 

This document (and any information accessed through links in this document) is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Professional legal advice should be obtained before taking or refraining from any action as a result of the contents of this document.