S'pore PR spends S$32,000 on hair transplant before divorce, court orders sum to be returned & split with ex-wife

A 47-year-old managing director’s decision to splurge on a S$32,000 hair transplant did not escape judicial scrutiny, as the High Court has ordered the amount to be returned to the matrimonial pool and shared with his ex-wife, ruling it as an attempt to dissipate assets.

A hairy situation

The ex-husband, an Irish citizen and Singapore permanent resident, earned about S$37,500 monthly in his role at a multinational investment bank.

The ex-wife herself earned a monthly income of about S$18,000 as a banker.

In court documents seen by Mothership, the husband made several expensive purchases in the months leading up to, and during, divorce proceedings.

In addition to the hair transplant, he also spent money on:

• Expenses incurred at a Shoulder, Knee and Sports Surgery clinic at S$2,200
• A new piano at S$6,210
• Orthodontic costs at S$8,630
• Surgery costs at S$31,400
• Legal fees amounting to over S$94,000

The ex-wife challenged these expenses, contending that they should be returned to the matrimonial pool for division because they were expended without her consent when divorce proceedings were imminent or had commenced.

Court orders returns

Justice Choo Han Teck held that while some medical or personal expenses might be allowable, or de minimis, these particular items — hair implants and the piano — were not reasonable in the context of divorce proceedings and lacked spousal consent.

For the hair implants, the husband said that he had booked the appointment for his hair implant treatment prior to the contemplation of divorce proceedings.

Justice Choo found this “difficult to believe” as the man had made enquiries on November 2021, which was merely two months before he commenced divorce proceedings.

Piano for "daughter's practice"

As for the piano that the husband had bought, he claimed that it was meant for his daughter to practise during his access to her.

The wife however rebutted that their daughter had discontinued piano lessons by that time, and therefore the piano was purchased solely for his own personal use.

The husband maintained that he had tried retrieving the existing piano from their matrimonial home but that the wife had refused to let him have it.

The wife claimed that she did not prohibit him from retrieving the items and that the original piano had only cost S$300, which was a fraction of the amount he had ended up spending to buy a new one.

Justice Choo had ordered all of the money spent on the previous items, along with the other expenses on the list above, to be returned back to the matrimonial pool.

Woman also ordered to return sums to matrimonial pool of assets

The woman had transferred S$120,000 into her OCBC bank account along with S$78,000.

For the former sum, she claimed that the money was from the balance sale proceeds of her father’s matrimonial flat and that they were held on trust for her father who is a compulsive gambler and spendthrift.

The latter sum, on the other hand, was meant to be an “accumulation of (her father’s) allowance over the years”.

While Justice Choo maintained that the first sum does belong to the woman's father, he did not believe that the other sum was meant for her father’s expenses.

This ruling arose as Justice Choo had looked into WhatsApp conversations between both the man and woman, in which she stated that she had reduced her parents’ allowance from $650 to $200 a month.

As such amounts would not add up to S$78,000, he ordered that it had to be included in the matrimonial pool of assets.

"Investment" in failed cafe

The man also accused the woman of dissipating S$100,000 by transferring it to her friend as a “business investment” into a cafe business.

However, the business had not only failed but the agreement was made orally and there was no formal documentation nor transfer of shares in the business.

Justice Choo said the woman and her friend “they have not produced a shred of evidence in support of their story” before ordering the sum to be returned to the matrimonial pool.

Renovations for mother's flat

The woman had also spent around S$18,300 for renovation and furnishing towards her mother’s new flat.

Justice Choo also said that this had to be returned to the matrimonial assets.

“In my view, whether the Wife truly meant it as a gift to her mother is immaterial.

The fact that she did not seek (her) husband’s consent before expending a substantial sum during the period after divorce proceedings commenced in February 2022 means that this sum… must be returned.”

Outcome

Justice Choo determined that the assets should ultimately be divided 53 to 47 in the ex-husband’s favour, awarding him roughly $4.2 million and his ex-wife about $3.8 million.

He concluded: “The parties should, with the help of their solicitors, work out the details of how to carry out the court’s division orders.”

Top images via Pixabay, Mothership