SINGAPORE FAMILY LAWYER DOROTHY TAN NAMED AS ONE OF ASIA’S TOP YOUNG LAWYERS.
Singapore divorce lawyer Family Lawyer Dorothy Tan has been named as one of “Asia’s Top Young Lawyers”
FAMILY LAWYER IN SINGAPORE NAMED IN “ASIA’S TOP 40 YOUNG LAWYERS”
October 2016 – We are pleased to announce that PKWA Divorce Lawyer Dorothy Tan has been named as one of “Asia’s Top 40 Young Lawyers” in the annual Asian Legal Business list of “40 Under 40 – Asia’s Brightest Young Legal Minds.”
The list comprises of lawyers under the age of 40 who have been recognised for doing important deals, working on key disputes and other high-quality work, and earning accolades from their colleagues and clients. The ALB list aims to provide a snapshot of the brightest young legal minds in Asia.
SINGAPORE DIVORCE LAWYER DOROTHY TAN – NAMED AS ONE OF ASIA’S TOP YOUNG LAWYERS
Dorothy’s inclusion in this year’s “Asia’s Top 40 Young Lawyers” list is a testament to the complex and high-quality work she has been doing, earning her praise from her clients.
Dorothy is Deputy Head of Family Law at PKWA Law and is one of the youngest to be made Associate Director. She has also earned accolades from her peers and independent legal publications as a top divorce lawyer in Singapore.
Dorothy Tan is one of the youngest lawyers to argue a case at the Court of Appeal successfully. See a summary of the case below:
Family Law Department Deputy Head Dorothy Tan wins important and landmark Court of Appeal case on the division of matrimonial assets. The decision establishes and confirms new Singapore law on the division of assets.
Civil Appeal No 22 of 2015
02 October 2015
Court of Appeal
Chao Hick Tin JA; Judith Prakash J; Quentin Loh J
Tan Xuan Qi Dorothy (PKWA Law Practice LLC) for the appellant; Isaac Tito Shane, Justin Chan Yew Loong and Zee Ning En Jasmine Mildred (Tito Isaac & Co LLP) for the respondent.
Family law — Matrimonial assets — Division
2 October 2015
Family Law Department Deputy Head Dorothy Tan successfully argued and won a significant and landmark case at Singapore’s highest court, the Court of Appeal today. This is a significant decision because in this case, the Court of Appeal affirmed and explained its earlier revolutionary decision in ANJ v ANK on the approach the Singapore courts must take in deciding the division of matrimonial assets.
This is a case in which our client (the husband) had instructed us to act for him after he had lost at the lower court.
After hearing arguments, the Court of Appeal allowed our client’s appeal and agreed with Dorothy that the High Court decision was wrong and awarded our client a sum of $800,000 for the division of assets. Our client’s share was increased from 0% to 25%.
The Court of Appeal said:
“ In advancing her arguments, Miss (Dorothy) Tan highlighted the fact that the Judge had erred in law by applying what was generally known as the “uplift” methodology. This error consisted of taking the view that the wife’s indirect contributions should be reflected by applying an “uplift” to the share she would have been entitled to on the basis of her indirect financial contributions only. We accepted Miss Tan’s contentions on this score, and we considered that the Judge had erred in that regard.”
This case is significant because the Court of Appeal reaffirmed and clarified its recent decision in ANJvsANK that in determining what a fair and equitable division of matrimonial assets is, the court will follow a structured approach consisting of 3 broad steps.
These 3 broad steps are:
(a) Express as a ratio the parties’ direct contributions relative to each other, having regard to the amount of financial contribution each party made towards the acquisition or improvement of the matrimonial assets;
(b) Express as a second ratio the parties’ indirect contributions relative to each other, having regard to both financial and non-financial contributions; and
(c) Derive the parties’ overall contributions relative to each other by taking an average of the two ratios above, keeping in mind that, depending on the circumstances of each case, the direct and indirect contributions may not be accorded equal weight and one of the two ratios may be accorded more significance than the other.