For a secure and informed start to your marriage

Our accomplished team of family lawyers boasts extensive experience in crafting prenuptial agreements. With us by your side, you can navigate this important process with confidence, secure in the knowledge that your rights and interests will be safeguarded every step of the way.

Your trusted legal partner

PKWA family lawyers have consistently earned recognition as leading Singapore lawyers in esteemed publications such as the Straits Times, Benchmark Litigation, Asian Legal Business, Singapore Business Review, and Doyle’s Guide. With over 30 years of history and a dedicated team of more than 100 professionals, we have earned the trust of major banks like DBS, UOB, OCBC, and Maybank.

Fixed and transparent fees

Choosing our firm offers you a distinct advantage – the assurance of fixed and transparent fees for our prenuptial agreement services. We believe in making financial planning straightforward and predictable, allowing you to budget with confidence and eliminating concerns about unexpected expenses. Our prenuptial agreement services start at just $2,990.

Why get a Prenuptial Agreement?

A prenuptial agreement is a legal contract entered into by a couple before marriage. Its primary purpose is to outline the financial arrangements and responsibilities of each spouse in the event of a divorce or the passing of one spouse. Below is some simple examples where a prenuptial agreement can provide some benefit:

• Property Percentage Allocation: Define the specific property percentages each spouse would receive in the event of divorce, especially when one party brings significant assets into the marriage.
• Asset Division: Address how assets are divided when one party enters the marriage with debts that are paid off using the other party’s assets.
• Child-Centric Provisions: Ensure the agreement acknowledges that certain assets should be retained for the benefit of any children from the marriage.

For a secure and informed start to your marriage, consider discussing prenuptial agreements with our team of dedicated family lawyers. We usually offer a complimentary initial discussion.

Securing your assets for future generations

Have you taken the necessary steps to safeguard your assets for the benefit of future generations? A Testamentary Trust, with its multitude of advantages, may prove to be the ideal choice for your specific circumstances. This trust structure can be particularly suitable in the following scenarios:

1. Asset Control: If you prefer to retain ownership and control of your hard-earned assets during your lifetime, a Testamentary Trust allows you to do just that.
2. Simplicity and Cost-Effectiveness: For those seeking a straightforward and cost-effective trust arrangement, a Testamentary Trust provides an attractive option.
3. Family Trustee: You may want to appoint a trusted family member, such as your spouse, as the trustee, rather than engaging an external party like a trust corporation.
4. Beneficiary Constraints: When beneficiaries are either too young or not financially responsible, a Testamentary Trust empowers you to impose constraints on their inheritance.
5. Minor Beneficiaries: If your beneficiaries are still minors, this trust allows you to allocate a portion of your estate to support their education and provide them with a source of income.
6. Debts and Legal Protections: Assets placed within a trust can offer protection against creditors and play a role in divorce proceedings when beneficiaries have debts.

Understanding Testamentary Trusts

A Testamentary Trust, also known as a Will Trust, is a legal framework where the settlor (you) grants authority to a trusted individual (the trustee) to hold title to property or assets for the benefit of others (the beneficiaries).

Unlike a living trust, a Testamentary Trust is established through a Will and takes effect only after the settlor’s passing. Upon the settlor’s demise, assets flow into the testamentary trust via the Will and are subject to the Grant of Probate process.

It’s important to note that the Testamentary Trust does not come into operation if the settlor loses mental capacity; it only takes effect upon the settlor’s passing.

How we can we assist you?

Our commitment to transparency means our fees are fixed, clear, and easily understood. If you’re interested in exploring the potential benefits of a Will Trust for your situation, we invite you to reach out for a complimentary initial consultation. Your future financial security and the legacy you leave behind are important, and we are here to guide you every step of the way.

Unlocking the benefits of a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA)

The Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) is a legal tool that offers individuals, known as the ‘donor,’ the opportunity to proactively appoint one or more trusted individuals, known as ‘donees,’ to act on their behalf should they lose mental capacity. This significant legal instrument covers two primary areas:

1. Personal welfare and
2. Property & affairs matters.

Why everyone should get an LPA in Singapore

The answer lies in the potential consequences of not having one in place.

In the unfortunate event that mental capacity is lost without an LPA, family members must embark on the complex journey of securing a Deputyship Order to manage the donor’s affairs. This court order appoints a court-appointed deputy, chosen without the donor’s input, to oversee their affairs. The appointed person may not align with the donor’s preferences, leaving them without a voice in the matter.

Furthermore, the absence of an LPA can impose significant stress and financial burdens on family members. Accessing the bank accounts of a breadwinner who has lost mental capacity becomes a daunting challenge, hindering the payment of essential bills while awaiting the issuance of the court order. The process of applying for a Deputyship Order is not only arduous but also time-consuming, often spanning several months.

In stark contrast, setting up a Lasting Power of Attorney presents numerous advantages and zero disadvantages. It is a step that should be taken by everyone, offering profound peace of mind in the face of unforeseen circumstances. Moreover, it is advisable to complement your LPA with a professionally drafted will, ensuring comprehensive protection for your future.

Don’t leave your future to chance—take control and safeguard your interests by establishing a Lasting Power of Attorney today.

Understanding Deputyship applications

A deputyship application is a legal process that comes into play when an individual has not created a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) and subsequently loses mental capacity. In such cases, concerned family members can seek the intervention of the Family Court under the Mental Capacity Court to appoint a “Deputy.” This Deputy is entrusted with the responsibility of representing and managing the person’s personal welfare and/or property and affairs. This process typically involves a series of required documents and may take several months for the court to issue the Deputyship order.

A deputy, in essence, is an individual appointed by the Family Court under the Mental Capacity Act to make decisions on behalf of a person who is deemed to lack mental capacity. This appointed individual is often a family member.

But what exactly constitutes a loss of mental capacity?

According to the law, a person is considered to lack mental capacity when they are unable to:

1. Understand the relevant information necessary for decision-making.
2. Retain that information.
3. Use or weigh that information as part of the decision-making process.
4. Communicate their decision, whether verbally, through sign language, or any other means.

Our expertise in matters of deputyship and loss of mental capacity

Our family lawyers specialise in assisting families in their deputyship applications. Our track record speaks for itself, with our lawyers consistently recognised as leading Singapore lawyers by prestigious publications such as the Straits Times, Benchmark Litigation, Asian Legal Business, Singapore Business Review, and Doyle’s Guide. With over 30 years of history and a dedicated team, our reputation extends to major banks, including DBS, UOB, OCBC, and Maybank, making us a trusted and dependable choice.

We believe in clarity and transparency from the outset. Our fees are fixed and clear, ensuring you understand the costs involved before reaching a decision. To get started, we usually offer a free initial consultation to better comprehend your situation.

Family lawyers from PKWA Law, led by Senior Associate Director Ms Dorothy Tan and assisted by Ms Tan Rui Fen, have helped a client (the husband) win a Court of Appeal case on the division of matrimonial assets.

The husband won 75% of S$13.6 million in matrimonial assets, up from 25%. This is arguably one of the highest swings and the most substantial reversals on the division of matrimonial assets on appeal.

The Court of Appeal judges comprising Judge of Appeal Judith Prakash and Justices Belinda Ang and Woo Bih Li released a 60-page decision on 25 February 2020. The apex court had described the case as “complicated”, “challenging”, and “highly unusual”.

The case of TQU v TQT [2020] SGCA 08 is highly complex. The summary case:

1. The case was highly contentious. “Although this was a long marriage, the facts relating to the breakdown of the marriage were highly unusual… because of the sheer extent of conflict from 2001 onwards,” the three judges who heard the appeal wrote.
2. The wife had filed numerous complaints against her husband with the authorities. This included allegations that he had unlawfully sold medicine and bribed patients, which eventually led to him being charged (and acquitted) in court.
3. Between 2001 to 2016, she filed 3 divorce applications against the husband.
4. After an interim judgment of divorce was finally issued in 2016, a High Court judge awarded the husband 25 per cent of the matrimonial assets.
5. The husband then engaged PKWA Law to take his case to the Court of Appeal. PKWA Law’s team, led by Deputy Head of Family Law Ms Dorothy Tan and assisted by Ms Tan Rui Fen, prepared, drafted and filed the Court of Appeal arguments and paperwork (including the Appellant’s Case, Record of Appeal, Skeletal Arguments and the Bundle of Authorities). The husband appeared at the appeal hearing himself.
6. The Court of Appeal, in a 60 page written judgment, overturned the High Court decision and increased the husband’s share to 75%, up from 25%.
7. The assets – valued at about S$13.6 million in total – included nearly a dozen properties in Singapore, China and Malaysia and shares in various listed companies.
8. Two major points of contention were the source of the funds used to buy the properties and the direct and indirect contributions of the couple. The wife alleged that they were acquired solely with income from a clinic her husband had opened, where she had helped out and that her indirect contributions were substantial.
9. “Although this was a long marriage, the facts relating to the breakdown of the marriage were highly unusual… because of the sheer extent of conflict from 2001 onwards,” the three judges who heard the appeal wrote.
10. The judges also found a “negative value” in the wife’s indirect contributions due to her misconduct in making the complaints, including the one that resulted in the husband’s criminal trial. “These acts of the wife amounted to harassment and undermined the co-operative partnership that marriage is intended to be,” the three judges said.
11. “Courts have long strived to reach a fair outcome on the facts of each case, and the factual matrix of the marriage before us has complicated the matter and made our task more challenging,” wrote Justice Woo Bih Li on behalf of the 3 Court of Appeal judges.
12. This case shows that while the courts have consistently “said that marriage is an equal co-operative partnership of efforts, this does not mean that the contributions of both parties in a marriage are always equal. Therefore, the court must have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the extent of the contributions made by each party towards acquiring matrimonial assets and to the welfare of the family.”

Issues raised by PKWA Law in written submissions to Court of Appeal

The PKWA Law team comprising Ms Dorothy Tan and Ms Tan Rui Fen had raised the following issues in the Appellant’s Case on behalf of the Husband:

1. The Judge failed to determine the operative dates for determining and valuing the matrimonial assets. The operative date for determination should be 28 June 2010, the date from which both parties agreed the marriage had broken down. The operative date for valuation should be March 2006, December 2001 or December 2010.
2. The Judge erred by including properties that were gifts from his parents or were no longer in existence as matrimonial assets. The Pender Court property in Singapore and the Liang Feng Mansion and the Regalia properties, both in Shanghai, China, were gifts from the Husband’s mother, while the Hai Hong Plaza and Sun Island International Club properties were no longer in existence as of the operative date of determination of the matrimonial assets.
3. The Judge erred in his finding on the parties’ direct contributions. The main source of the funds used to acquire the properties was the Husband’s gifts or inheritance from his parents, which are solely attributable to the Husband, not the clinic’s income. Moreover, even if the funds had been from the Clinic, the Husband was the sole owner and resident doctor, and the income should be attributed solely to him.
4. The Judge erred in his finding on the parties’ indirect contributions. The Wife was largely absent from the family after 2001, and before that, she had the assistance of helpers and the Husband’s mother. The Husband was largely responsible for the care of the children, and the ratio of indirect contributions should be 90:10 in his favour.
5. The Judge failed to consider the Wife’s misconduct as she caused harm to the children and constantly embroiled the family in vexatious legal proceedings.
6. The Judge erred in his finding that equal division was appropriate before any adjustment. This was not a long single-income marriage, and the Husband’s contributions far outweighed the Wife’s contributions.
7. The Judge erred in drawing an adverse inference against the Husband and awarding the Wife an additional 25% of the matrimonial assets. The Wife also failed to make full disclosure.
8. The Husband submits that the Judge should have used the classification methodology. Accordingly, he submits that the value of the foreign properties and the Singapore properties purchased before 2001 should be divided 95:5 in his favour, each party should retain the Singapore properties purchased after 2001 in their own name, and the value of all other assets should be divided 72:28 in his favour.