Parents’ funding did not cut wife’s share of jointly owned home

Written reasons delivered on 16 October explain why Ro-Yen Simone Chin Forbes was awarded half of the family home, replacing a 20% share ordered below. The Court of Appeal focused on the decision to register the spouses as joint tenants, despite the husband and his parents providing the purchase funds.

The judgment records that the husband received legal advice before adding his wife to the title. The court rejected treating the home as a gift intended solely for him while also classifying it as the statutory family home.

The judges recognised that section 7 of the Property (Rights of Spouses) Act allows relevant circumstances to justify departing from equal shares. But the financial history and the parties’ deliberate ownership arrangement did not justify the reduction made in this case. The wife’s lack of financial contribution did not defeat her entitlement.

The earlier appellate order declared a 50% interest, directed valuation and gave the husband the first option to buy her share, failing which the property would be sold. Each party was to bear their own costs.

This is a 2026 written-reasons development for an earlier order. The cover and paragraph 3 give 24 November 2025 for that order; paragraph 1 instead says 24 September 2025. The November date is used with that internal discrepancy disclosed. Later treatment not checked.