BCB v BCC

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeLee Seiu Kin J
Judgment Date17 July 2012
Neutral Citation[2012] SGHC 144
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Docket NumberDivorce Transfer No 4208 of 2010
Published date09 April 2013
Year2012
Hearing Date01 February 2012,23 May 2012,23 March 2012
Plaintiff CounselPlaintiff in person
Defendant CounselMimi Oh (Mimi Oh & Associates)
Subject MatterFamily Law,Custody,Maintenance,Matrimonial assets
Citation[2012] SGHC 144
Lee Seiu Kin J : Introduction

The plaintiff (“Husband”) and defendant (“Wife”) were married in January 1991. They have three children, a girl, B born in 1993 and two boys, C born in 1997, and D born in 2001. B attends a polytechnic, C is in secondary school and D is in primary school. The Husband filed this divorce suit on 20 August 2010, on the basis of four years’ separation. The Wife did not contest the divorce and interim judgment was granted on 27 October 2010.

On 1 February 2012, after hearing the parties’ submissions, I made orders pertaining to custody, care and control of the three children, maintenance for the three children and the Wife, and division of matrimonial assets. After a number of hearings to clarify those orders, the settled order is as follows: Care, Control and Custody of the three children That parties are to have joint custody of the three children of the marriage, namely: B, aged 18 years-old C, aged 14 years-old D, aged 9 years-old with care and control to the defendant and reasonable access to the plaintiff as outlined herein: The plaintiff is to liaise directly with B with regards reasonable access to her. With regards C and D, the plaintiff is to have access as follows: Weekly access Every alternate Friday 6pm to Sunday 6pm with effect from 10th February 2012; At least one weekday’s access for 3 hours, which may be on Friday’s night on the children’s option and if it is on Friday’s night, then it shall be for 4 hours. Alternate Public holidays access Every alternate public holidays from eve of the said public holiday, 6pm to the public holiday, 9pm and for the plaintiff to commence with the next public holiday access save that: The plaintiff is to have access for every Deepavali and New Year day; The defendant is to have access for every Christmas and Good Friday (through to Easter Sunday and if that is the weekend, the plaintiff is supposed to have access, then the Plaintiff shall have access the following weekend in lieu thereof). School holiday access Every alternate half of the school holidays: Two weeks for May/June school holidays (with the plaintiff to have the first two weeks); Three weeks for November/December school holidays (with the plaintiff to have the first three weeks). Both parties are at liberty to take the children overseas during the school holidays provided that each party provides the other with the itinerary, travel and accommodation arrangements. The defendant to hand over the children’s passports to the plaintiff as necessary, which shall be handed back to the defendant upon return. Maintenance for the three children of the marriage Plaintiff is to contribute a monthly maintenance sum of S$2,400 but only pays a cash sum of $730 into DBS bank account no xxx with regards the maintenance support of the three children of the marriage every 1st day of the month and every subsequent month thereafter with effect from the date of this order, save that plaintiff is to pay directly to the three children, a total sum of $640: to B, her monthly allowance of $300, which includes transport; to C, his monthly allowance of $160 which includes transport together with his tuition fees and any enhanced tuition fees; to D, his monthly allowance of $120 and to directly pay for his transport cost, his tuition fees and any enhanced tuition fees; and for the avoidance of all doubts, the plaintiff is to pay for all tuition fees for C and D. Any reasonable ad-hoc expenses for the three children will be borne in the proportion of 1/3 and 2/3 between the defendant and plaintiff respectively. Maintenance for the Wife Plaintiff is to pay a monthly maintenance sum of $1 to the defendant, to be credited into DBS bank account no xxx every 1st of the month and every subsequent month thereafter with effect from the date of this order. Passport of the three children That the plaintiff is to return to the defendant, the two international passports of the two boys, C and D and all the birth certificates of the three children. Division of the Matrimonial Assets For Braemar home (“Braemar home”): That the Braemar home known as [address redacted] is to be sold, and the net sale proceeds after deducting the outstanding mortgage loan and paying all costs and expenses related to the sale, be divided in the proportion of 30% to plaintiff and 70% to the defendant. The defendant shall utilise her share of the sale proceeds to refund into her CPF account, all CPF monies utilised in the said mortgage repayments plus accrued interests. For Serangoon HDB flat (“Serangoon HDB flat”): That the Serangoon HDB flat known as [address redacted] is to be sold, and the nett sale proceeds after deducting the outstanding mortgage loan and paying all costs and expenses related to the sale, be divided in the proportion of 30% to plaintiff and 70% to the defendant. Parties shall utilise his/her own share of the sale proceeds to refund into his/her own respective CPF account, all CPF monies utilised in the said mortgage repayments plus accrued interests. The plaintiff shall have conduct of the sale of both properties, as abovementioned forthwith including appointment of solicitor and agent. The plaintiff and defendant are to procure the removal of the defendant’s name as a joint tenant of the Serangoon HDB flat as soon as funds are available from exercise of option of the sale of the Braemar home. The proceeds of sale of either of the two abovementioned properties may be distributed in the ratio of 40% and 30% to defendant and plaintiff respectively pending appeal and the balance sale proceeds to be held by solicitors having conduct of sale as stakeholder pending appeal. Each party is to bear his/her own costs. Liberty to apply.

The Husband has filed a notice of appeal and I now give my grounds of decision.

The background facts are as follows. The Husband is self-employed and earns about $7,000 per month from consultancy and project work, much of which was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Goh Keng Boey v Ong Jim Hwee
    • Singapore
    • Family Court (Singapore)
    • 28 May 2015
    ...SGCA 69; VL v VM [2007] SGDC 332; Lim Puay Hoong v Tan Kuang Hua and Another [2009] SGDC 222; AKF v AKG [2010] SGHC 225; BCB v BCC [2012] SGHC 144; BMN v BMO [2013] SGDC 388; and BNH v BNI [2013] SGHC 283.) It is also not uncommon for the court to order no maintenance when the divorced wife......
  • BCB v BCC
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 28 January 2013
    ...JA (delivering the judgment of the court): This is an appeal by the Husband against the decision of the judge (“the Judge”) in BCB v BCC [2012] SGHC 144 (“the GD”) with regard to two issues, viz, the issue of care and control of the children and the division of matrimonial assets pursuant t......
  • TAL v TAM
    • Singapore
    • Family Court (Singapore)
    • 24 February 2015
    ...per month. (VL v VM [2007] SGDC 332; Lim Puay Hoong v Tan Kuang Hua and Another [2009] SGDC 222; AKF v AKG [2010] SGHC 225; BCB v BCC [2012] SGHC 144; BMN v BMO [2013] SGDC 388; and BNH v BNI [2013] SGHC 283.) Where a nominal maintenance order is made, the wife’s right to apply for maintena......
  • Bcb v Bcc
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 28 January 2013
    ...(delivering the judgment of the court): 1 This is an appeal by the husband against the decision of the judge (‘the Judge’) in BCB v BCC [2012] SGHC 144 (‘the GD’) with regard to two issues, viz,the issue of care and control of the children and the division of matrimonial assets pursuant to ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Family Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2013, December 2013
    • 1 December 2013
    ...contributions. 16.50 BCB v BCC involved a 15-year marriage in which three children were raised. The court below had found that (BCB v BCC[2012] SGHC 144 at [19]): The ratio of direct contributions by the Husband and Wife is 34.9:65.1 … I took into consideration that the Husband had been as ......

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