Andy Eirwan Bin Ismail v Bartropp Nicola Jane

JudgeLee Li Choon
Judgment Date03 July 2015
Neutral Citation[2015] SGFC 87
CourtFamily Court (Singapore)
Docket NumberDivorce No. 1441 of 2014
Published date02 September 2015
Hearing Date22 April 2015
Plaintiff CounselMr Irving Choh Thian Chee and Ms Stephanie Looi Min Yi (Optimus Chambers LLC)
Defendant CounselMr Vincent Lim Puay Chong (JLC Advisors LLP)
Subject MatterCatchwords: Family Law,division of matrimonial assets,Family Law,maintenance for wife
Citation[2015] SGFC 87
District Judge Lee Li Choon: Introduction

This is an appeal filed by the Plaintiff-husband against my decision given on 22 April 2015 on ancillary matters subsequent to a divorce. This is a short childless marriage. The Plaintiff-husband and the Defendant-wife were married in Singapore on 17 March 2010. The husband is 41 years old and he works as a jockey. The wife is 28 years old and she used to work as a riding instructor with the Turf club in Singapore but she has gone back to the United Kingdom where her parents are and was, at the time of the hearing of the ancillaries, unemployed in the United Kingdom, after sustaining a fall from a horse. The husband filed for divorce in March 2014 and Interim Judgment dissolving the marriage on the ground that the wife has behaved in such a way that the husband cannot reasonably be expected to live with her was granted on 26 May 2014.

The orders I made on ancillary matters are as follows: The matrimonial flat at Block 681 Choa Chu Kang Crescent #05-532 Singapore 680681 (“the matrimonial flat”) shall be divided by giving to the Plaintiff 60% and to the Defendant 40% of the net value of the matrimonial flat. The net value of the flat shall be based on the market value of the flat derived from HDB valuation or actual sale price and deducting therefrom the outstanding housing loan and costs and expenses related to the sale of the flat, if the flat were to be sold. In accordance with paragraph (a) above, the matrimonial flat shall be sold in the open market within 6 months from the Final Judgment and the sale proceeds shall be utilized towards repayment of the outstanding housing loan, full refunds of parties’ CPF monies utilized towards the purchase of the flat including accrued interest. The net sale proceeds thereafter shall be divided 60% to the Plaintiff and 40% to the Defendant. The difference between the Defendant’s share as stipulated in paragraph (a) above and the CPF refund to her account plus the cash proceeds given to her, shall be transferred from the Plaintiff’s CPF account to the Defendant’s CPF account. The Plaintiff shall be given the first option to buy over the Defendant’s share as stipulated in paragraph (a) above by refunding to the Defendant’s CPF account the Defendant’s CPF monies utilized towards the purchase of the flat and paying the difference between the Defendant’s share as stipulated in paragraph (a) above and the CPF refunds in cash to the Defendant. The Plaintiff shall notify the Defendant in writing within 3 months hereof if he wishes to exercise the option. Each party shall retain all other assets in his/her sole name. There shall be no maintenance for the Defendant. In the event the Plaintiff or the Defendant refuses or fails to sign the documents necessary and incidental to the sale or transfer of the matrimonial flat as set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) above upon 7 days’ notice given to the other party, the Registrar of the Family Justice Courts is empowered to sign the said documents on parties’ behalf. No orders as to costs. Liberty to apply.


The husband works as a jockey with the Singapore Turf Club and he earns a basic salary of $2,700 a month. Prior to the wife’s return to the United Kingdom, she was working as a riding instructor. The wife came to Singapore in 2000 when her parents came here for work. When parties got married, the wife was 23 years old. The wife’s parents returned to the United Kingdom in 2011. After the marriage broke down, as the wife had no family or relatives in Singapore, the wife has since gone back to the UK to stay with her parents.

Division of matrimonial flat

Presently, the husband is 41 years old and the wife is much younger at 28 years old. The only matrimonial asset in contention is their jointly owned HDB flat at Choa Chu Kang Crescent. The flat presently has an estimated value of $377,000. As at April 2015, the outstanding housing loan stood at $195,867.14. Thus, the net value of this flat is about $181,132.86. The husband has other assets such as CPF monies and insurance policies. As this is a short marriage and the wife did not lay a claim on these other assets, for the purpose of determining what would be a just and equitable division of matrimonial assets, I will focus on parties’ primary asset which is the matrimonial flat.

CPF contributions from the parties

Both parties paid towards this flat using their CPF monies. Based on their CPF contributions alone, as at September 2014, $134,054.85 (principal only) had come from the husband and $16,314 (principal only) had come from the wife. Thus, based on CPF contributions alone, the husband contributed 89.2% and the wife contributed 10.8% towards the flat. This is not disputed.

Monies towards the renovation and furnishings of the flat from the wife’s father

Parties’ dispute on the issue of their respective financial contributions centres around the wife’s contention that her father provided the parties with a loan in the sum of $25,000 towards the cash payment for the flat and the sum of $54,846.72 towards the renovation and furnishings of the flat. In support of this, the wife filed her father’s statutory declaration and exhibited invoices issued to the wife’s father. The wife’s contention is that these amounts of money were given as loans to the parties and that the loans should be paid from the sale proceeds of the flat.

On these payments that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • UHF v UHE
    • Singapore
    • Family Court (Singapore)
    • 16 November 2017
    ...which may shed light on how a court may approach this. Counsel submitted the cases of Andy Eirwan Bin Ismail v Bartropp Nicola Jane [2015] SGFC 87 and Van Dijk Cornelius Josephus Petrus v Baco Criselda Macaway [2014] SGDC 159.9 These authorities were not of much assistance as they concerned......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT