Bey Jacqueline v Lee Yok Lung Edmond

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chua F A J
• Judgment Date: 10 March 1988
• Neutral Citation: [1988] SGHC 21
• Citation: [1988] SGHC 21
• Defendant Counsel: MPH Rubin (Amarjit Rubin & Partners)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Kan Ting Chiu (RCH Lim & Co)
• Date: 10 March 1988
• Docket Number: Divorce Petition No 2018 of 1984
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Merits of claims,s 107 & 109(1) Women's Charter (Cap 353),Matrimonial assets,Home bought by respondent husband Petitioner/wife's share upon divorce and sale of home,s 106(3) & (4) Women's Charter (Cap 353),Division of assets,Lump sum payment,Maintenance,Family Law

The parties were married on 17 April 1972 in Singapore. After the marriage, they first lived with the respondent`s parents. When the respondent was posted to Brunei in January 1974 as branch manager of the Overseas Union Bank there, the petitioner went back to live with her parents.

During the period that the respondent was living in Brunei, the petitioner visited the respondent on a number of occasions, staying with the respondent for varying periods and on one occasion for a whole year in 1976. Her last visit to the respondent was in September 1981. The parties have lived apart since 25 September 1981. The petitioner filed her petition on 20 December 1984, founded on separation for more than three years and the respondent consented to a decree being granted and a decree nisi was granted on 3 July 1985.

The respondent was re-assigned to head office in April 1985. He left the bank on 6 August 1986, when he was the deputy manager, main branch.

The respondent purchased No 33 Jasmine Road, Singapore, in December 1980 for $258,000 with his own funds and a mortgage loan and it was registered in his sole name. The petitioner did not contribute any sum towards the purchase of the house. The house was rented out in 1981 and 1982 for $1,300 per month. It was vacant in 1983. In June 1984, the respondent sold it for $505,000.

The petitioner has a poor education. She passed Secondary 2 and completed Secondary 3 and left school. She has never worked. She lives with her father, and is supported by him.

The respondent joined the bank on 1 February 1962 as a clerk. At the time he left the bank, he was drawing a salary of $3,802 per month gross. In addition he would get three months` annual wage supplement and at least one month`s special bonus. For the year 1982, his gross annual income from the bank was $64,610; for 1983, $70,285; for 1984, $75,660 and for 1985, $63,858.50. While he was in Brunei, he was provided by the bank free accommodation and he had full use of a bank car. When he was reassigned to Singapore, these fringe benefits ceased. He resigned from the bank of his own accord. Upon his resignation, he received $4,852.96 gratuity.

The respondent is now 45 years old. He says that he is not employed but is doing some freelancing as a financial consultant; that he had not been doing anything since he left the bank until May 1987.

In his affidavit of means filed on 18 June 1985, the respondent disclosed that for the years 1982, 1983 and 1984 his income and expenditure were as follows:

1982

(a)

Gross income

$64,610.00

(b)

Expenditure

(including CPF contributions of $10,570.00)

$67,819.00

Amount overspent

(-)

$ 3,209.00

1983

(a)

Gross income

$70,285.00

(b)

Expenditure

(including CPF contributions of $11,575.00)

$70,039.00

Balance

$ 246.00

1984

(a)

Gross Income

$75,660.00

(b)

Expenditure

(including CPF contributions of ($14,019.00)

$72,813.00

Balance

$ 2,847.00

Upon the application of the petitioner, the respondent was ordered to file a further affidavit disclosing all his assets and income which he had not previously disclosed.

On 12 November 1986, the respondent filed a further affidavit disclosing that the net proceeds of sale from the sale of No 33 Jasmine Road, after paying off the housing loan, agent`s brokerage and miscellaneous expenses, was $383,773 and that from the net proceeds of sale he had given about $100,000 to his parents for the purchase and renovation of a HDB flat at Block 306, Unit 10-351 Hougang Avenue 5, Singapore, for themselves; that he had used another $40,000 to purchase a motor vehicle (a Mercedes Coupe) and from the balance of $243,773 he had invested $235,470 in shares; that when the share market fell he had sold some of the shares for $63,450 and incurred a loss of $138,920 and that the only shares remaining with him were, as at 5 November 1986, valued at $33,100. He had also about $8,000 cash.

On 16 October 1985, the petitioner took out a summons praying for an order that the respondent pay her a lump sum maintenance of $160,000, or such other sum as may be reasonable.

The respondent in his affidavit filed on 18 June 1985 contended that the petitioner was a person of substantial means and to the best of his knowledge and belief she was worth `perhaps in the region of at least $300,000 to $500,000`.

The petitioner in her affidavit filed on 16 October 1985 in reply said that what she had in her possession consisted mainly of jewellery, bequeathed to her by her late mother, which she believed was worth about $140,000; that she was given a one-ninth share in the property known as No 38 Tu Fu Avenue, Singapore, but the house was presently occupied by her father, her brothers, a sister-in-law and herself and that she also had a bank account of $5,000 which were her savings throughout the years.

She also stated in her affidavit that her monthly living expenses ranged from $300 to $600. She had to look after her father and did general household chores and in return for this, her father gave her pocket money as and when she needed it.

The respondent says that from the account of income and expenditure disclosed in his affidavit of 18 June 1985, he has very little savings and even as of now he is living rather frugally as his funds are fist running out and he is hoping that he will again be gainfully employed. He maintains that he had incurred a loss of $138,920 in share transactions. He contends that No 33 Jasmine Road was not a matrimonial property and was never intended to be so. He maintains that $160,000 claimed by the petitioner as lump sum payment of maintenance is unreasonable and excessive in the light of his present...