AQR v AQS

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lai Siu Chiu J
• Judgment Date: 27 May 2011
• Neutral Citation: [2011] SGHC 139
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DT No 2009 of 2008
• Published date: 13 March 2012
• Year: 2011
• Hearing Date: 14 January 2011
• Plaintiff Counsel: N Kanagavijayan (Kana & Co)
• Defendant Counsel: V Esvaran (Esvaran & Tan)
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Divorce,Matrimonial Assets
• Citation: [2011] SGHC 139

Lai Siu Chiu J:

This case involved the resolution of ancillary matters between the parties after their marriage was dissolved by the Family Court on 30 March 2010 with an Interim Judgment awarded to the plaintiff (“the husband”) against the defendant (“the wife”) based on her unreasonable behaviour. The ancillary matters were adjourned by the Family Court to be dealt with on a later date. These pertained to: (a) Custody, care and control of the child of the marriage; (b) Division of the matrimonial home; (c) Division of the matrimonial assets (aside from the matrimonial home); and (d) Maintenance for the wife.

On 14 January 2011, the ancillary matters came up for hearing before this court. After hearing the submissions from counsel, I made the following orders: (a) The wife was to transfer to the husband all her rights, title and interest in the property at Bayshore Road, Singapore (“the matrimonial flat”) as well as her rights, title and interest in two Australian properties (see [9(d)] below without consideration. The cost of transfer for all three properties was to be borne by the husband. In the event the wife failed or refused to execute the transfer of the matrimonial flat within seven days of a request in writing from the husband’s solicitors, the Registrar of the Supreme Court was empowered to do so on her behalf pursuant to s 14 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed). (b) The husband was to pay the wife as lump sum maintenance $250,000 by five equal quarterly instalments, the first $50,000 forthwith and the remaining $200,000 in 4 equal instalments payable on 1 April 2011, 1 July 2011, 1 October 2011 and 3 January 2012. (c) The wife was to vacate and deliver up possession of the matrimonial flat to the husband no later than 1 March 2011 and in exchange thereof the wife was to move into the husband’s rented premises at Pari Dedap Walk, Singapore (“the rented premises”) which rent the husband was to continue to pay until 31 March 2011. Thereafter, if the wife continued to reside at the rented premises, the wife was to pay the rent herself. (d) By consent the husband and the wife were to have joint custody of the daughter of the marriage (“[B]”) with care and control to the wife. The husband was to have liberal access to [B] at all times and was entitled with prior notice to the wife, to take the child on overseas holidays during the school vacation in particular during the June and December vacations of each year. Neither party was allowed to take [B] outside jurisdiction without prior notice to the other party, such notice to be at least of seven days and the other party was to give its consent which consent was not to be unreasonably withheld. (e) Payment to third parties for [B]’s expenses including but not limited to school, tutors, school bus operator, guitar tutor, life and accident insurance companies, handphone service operator, doctors and dentists shall be met directly or by GIRO arrangements by the husband. (f) The husband was to continue to maintain the wife’s child (“[C]”) who was at liberty to continue to reside with the husband. (g) In addition to the lump sum maintenance of $250,000, the husband was to provide the wife with a one-off payment of $10,000 as maintenance with the first instalment of $50,000. (h) the wife at the husband’s expense, was to seek counselling for anger management for a period of six months from a psychiatrist whose services should first be approved by the husband. (i) Other than the transfer of the properties set out in (a) above, the parties were to retain their assets which were in their sole names including the wife’s two properties in Ho Chih Min City, Vietnam. The wife was to forthwith remove her name from the joint accounts maintained by the husband with Development Bank of Singapore (“DBS”) and National Australia Bank (“NAB”). (j) Parties were to have liberty to apply. (k) No orders for costs.

The wife is dissatisfied with my decision and has appealed (in Civil Appeal No 19 of 2011) against all the orders that I made save on the issue of costs. As such, I shall now set out the reasons for my decision.

The background

The husband, who is of German origin but an American citizen, met the wife, a Vietnamese, in Hanoi in 1993 when the husband was then working there for a foreign company. The wife was then employed as a hotel bar waitress. The parties subsequently married in Hanoi in August 1996. When they married, the wife was a single parent having had a daughter, [C], out of wedlock in 1990, from a relationship the wife had at age 19 with a married man.

After the marriage, the parties stayed in Vietnam for 2 years and then moved to Singapore in 1998 when the husband was posted here as a director of sales of an American company. [B] was born in Singapore in July 1999.

The husband filed his divorce suit on 25 April 2008. Initially, the wife contested the divorce by filing a defence. Eventually, after almost two years and after the husband had amended his statement of claim with (according to the wife) “watered” down particulars of the wife’s unreasonable behaviour, the wife withdrew her defence and the husband’s suit proceeded on an uncontested basis resulting in the Interim Judgment being granted on 30 March 2010.

For purposes of the ancillaries hearing, the parties filed the requisite affidavits of means. However, the wife’s affidavit of means went beyond what was required; she dredged up unnecessary and irrelevant matters from the time before the parties were married and, for good measure, threw in scurrilous allegations of the husband’s infidelities, his failure to maintain his daughter from a previous marriage as well as charges of abuse and assault. This prompted the husband to file rebuttal affidavits, in response to which she filed even more affidavits.

As at the date of the hearing of the ancillaries, the husband resided at the rented premises which he had leased at $2,700 per month for his own and [C]’s accommodation. The wife resided at the matrimonial flat with [B], but with the husband paying all the outgoings.

The affidavits

According to the husband, he had the following assets as of 16 June 2010 (when he filed his affidavit of means): (a) The matrimonial flat valued at $1.95m and mortgaged to DBS for a loan of $433,761.12; (b) Cash in the bank of about $150; (c) Central Provident Fund (“CPF”) savings, as follows: (i) Ordinary account – $49,829.55; (ii) Medisave account – $19,012.18; and (iii) Special account – $24,177.85. (d) Two Australian properties (hereinafter referred to collectively as “the Australian properties”), namely: (i) A house at Gracemere Gardens, Hope Island, Queensland (“Gracemere Gardens”) purchased at A$373,000 valued at A$590,000 with an outstanding loan of S$236,442; and (ii) A piece of land at Gracemere Waters, Hope Island, Queensland (“Gracemere Waters”) purchased at A$435,000 valued at A$725,000 with an outstanding loan of S$338,346. The husband listed the mortgagees of the three properties as his creditors. He stated he acquired all the assets without any contribution from the wife whatsoever. This was disputed by the wife who contended that she contributed, and directly at that, as elaborated in [15] below.

The husband who earned (or earns) $12,600 a month excluding variable commission estimated that his monthly expenses totalled $20,373, comprising of the following:

(a) Personal expenses	$4,323
(b) [B]’s expenses	$1,636.65
(c) [C]’s expenses	$2,735
(d) Expenses at the rented flat	$3,504
(e) The matrimonial flat	$3,545
(f) Gracemere Gardens	$2,176
(g) Gracemere Waters	$2,454

The husband exhibited documentary evidence to substantiate the above expenses.

The husband listed his liabilities as his credit card debts (totalling $35,000), taxes owed to the United States tax authorities (totalling US$64,000) and the Singapore tax authorities (totalling $20,200). He is making his income tax payments to the United States and Singapore tax authorities by monthly instalments of $1,480 and $4,086.20 respectively.

On her part, the wife listed her assets as the three immoveable properties (viz, the matrimonial flat and the two Australian properties) belonging to the husband. Apart from the matrimonial flat which was in the wife’s sole name, the Australian properties were in the joint names of the couple. There was no dispute on the monetary value of the properties. In addition to the aforesaid three properties, the wife disclosed she owned two properties in Hanoi, Vietnam. One was inherited from her grandfather while the other was purchased by her for VND138,640,000 (which is equivalent to US$6,625.64, taking the exchange rate of VND20,924.77 to US$1.00) prior to her marriage to the husband.

The wife listed nine bank accounts that she maintained jointly with the husband, including four accounts maintained with NAB, two of which pertained to the mortgage loans for the Australian properties referred to in [9].

The wife had CPF savings of $1,687.05 in her Ordinary account, $0.36 in her Medisave account and $852.09 in her Special account. The wife listed her monthly expenses as $13,562.70 (see [24] below) excluding $3,903 for [B]’s expenses. She claimed to have borrowed $12,000 from one Madam Tan Sew Lee because the husband had reduced the amount of maintenance to her as well as his payments for the outgoings of the matrimonial flat.

The wife did not deny that the husband had paid for all three immoveable properties without any financial contribution from her. However, she claimed she had contributed directly on the basis that from the beginning, it was agreed between the parties that they would place all their monies into their joint accounts to enable them to build up their assets together. She claimed that she took...