This decision means that the engagement and presence of a domestic helper (especially when the wife worked full time) is a material fact that may affect the weight given to the wife’s indirect contributions. In TPY v TPZ  SGHCF 02 dated 18 Jan 2017, the High Court said (emphasis added):
26 First, the presence of domestic help throughout the marriage is a material
consideration that justifies a downward adjustment of the DJ’s findings.
Generally, the presence of a domestic helper in a household reduces the burdens
of homemaking and caregiving for both parties. This, as observed by the Court
of Appeal in ANJ v ANK at  may have an impact in determining the parties’
…the engagement of a domestic helper naturally reduces the
burden of homemaking and caregiving responsibilities
undertaken by the parties, and to that extent, the weight
accorded to the parties’ collective indirect contributions.
Nevertheless, I caveat that the presence of a domestic helper within a household
should not be treated as an overriding factor in the determination of the parties’
homemaking and caregiving contributions. Domestic helpers play different
roles and provide differing extents of help to the families they assist. In some
families, it is also possible that the parties continue to contribute actively as
homemaker and caretaker even in the presence of domestic help. This is
consistent with the view taken by the Court of Appeal in AQS v AQR 
SGCA 3 where it stated at  that:
Having domestic help does not mean the wife made no
contribution as a homemaker at all, especially when the parties’
household here included two children.
Accordingly, the specific role that domestic helpers play within each household
should be carefully considered in determining its effect on the parties’ indirect
contributions. The parties’ participation in the management and supervision of
the domestic helper should also be considered.
27 In the present case, both the Husband and the Wife worked full-time
throughout the marriage and relied on the domestic helper substantially for
homemaking and caregiving in order to focus on their respective careers.
Nonetheless, the Wife was the main supervisor of the domestic helper as the Husband frequently travelled for work throughout the marriage and was not at
home in those periods. Notwithstanding the fact that both parties had benefitted
from the domestic helper in terms of reducing their homemaking
responsibilities, the fact that the Wife was the main supervisor and manager of
the domestic helper weighs slightly in her favour.
28 Second, although I accept that the Wife made certain sacrifices in her
career in order to care for the Child, I do not find them sufficient to justify the
70:30 ratio awarded by the DJ and a ratio of 60:40 in favour of the Wife is more
appropriate. It is undisputed that the Wife worked full-time throughout the
marriage even after the Child was born. It follows that for a significant part of
each working day, the Wife was not at home and the Child was most likely cared
for by the domestic helper. The Husband also worked full-time throughout the
marriage and frequently travelled for work. This meant that for some periods,
the Wife was the only parent at home with the Child and some regard should be
given to this fact. Given the evidence of the stagnation of the Wife’s salary in
the early years of the marriage, I accept that the Wife may have given up certain
employment opportunities (ie, working abroad or taking up a job that requires
frequent travel) in the light of the marriage and the Child. Nevertheless, I am
cognisant of the fact that the Wife has succeeded tremendously in her career and
in fact earned more than the Husband in the latter years of the marriage. In the
circumstances, I find that a 60:40 ratio in favour of the Wife is more justified
than a 70:30 ratio.
We just sent you an email. Please click the link in the email to confirm your subscription!
OKSubscriptions powered by Strikingly