Chan Choy Ling v Chua Che Teck

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Karthigesu JA
• Judgment Date: 20 September 1995
• Neutral Citation: [1995] SGCA 74
• Docket Number: Civil Appeals Nos 155, 160
• Date: 20 September 1995
• Year: 1995
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Chua Swee Keng (Chua Swee Keng & Co)
• Citation: [1995] SGCA 74
• Defendant Counsel: Respondent in person
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure,Circumstances considered by the court,Unnecessarily protracted litigation,Departure from the usual order of costs to follow the event,Principles,Costs,Matrimonial assets,Factors to be considered,Family Law,Costs within discretion of the court,Costs could have been avoided if parties were more reasonable and conciliatory,s 106(2) Women's Charter (Cap 353),Whether matrimonial property acquired by sole effort or joint efforts,Division

There are three appeals before us and they arose out of the divorce proceedings between Chan Choy Ling (`the wife`) and Chua Che Teck (`the husband`). First, there is Civil Appeal No 184 of 1994 by the wife against that part of the decision of the High Court given on 12 April 1994, in which it was ordered that the arrears of the interim maintenance for their children at $800 per month with effect from 1 December 1993 payable by the husband be waived. Second, there is Civil Appeal No 155 of 1994 also by the wife against that part of the decision of the High Court given on 19 September 1994, in which it was ordered that (i) certain access to the children be given to the husband, and (ii) the wife pay to the husband a sum of $100,000 in full and final settlement of his claims to his share of the matrimonial property, known as 69, Fulton Road. Third, there is Civil Appeal No 160 of 1994 by the husband also against that part of the decision of the High Court given on 19 September 1994 dealing with the division of matrimonial property. All the three appeals were heard together. We allowed the appeal against that part of the order on the waiver of the arrears of the interim maintenance and directed that the arrears be paid. We also varied the order relating to access to the children. We reserved for determination the question of division of matrimonial assets. In view of the fact that the very lengthy arguments put forward hardly provided us with any assistance, we invited the parties to put in written submissions setting out in concise form their respective cases for the division of matrimonial assets.

Background

The wife is an architect by profession and graduated in 1974 from the then University of Singapore. The husband is a mechanical engineer and graduated in 1976 from the University of Strathclyde. The wife started her career as an architect in 1974 by joining an architectural firm. In the following year, she joined Jurong Town Corporation as an architect and three years later was promoted to the position of a senior architect. The husband joined Jurong Town Corporation in late 1977 as a mechanical engineer, and it was at that time or thereabouts that they met. The husband was married then and he has a daughter by his first wife, who was then five years old.

Sometime in 1980 the husband and wife left Singapore and went to Kuala Lumpur. By that time, presumably, they had been cohabiting as husband and wife, for in that year their first child, a son, was born. There, the wife joined an architectural firm and her salary was M$3,000 per month and the husband joined an engineering company and his salary was M$2,300 per month. They worked in Kuala Lumpur for about a year and then went to Brunei where the wife joined an architectural and engineering firm as an architect with a monthly salary of B$5,000 and the husband joined Chubb Pte Ltd, Brunei, as an engineer drawing a salary of B$3,200 per month. In addition, both of them apparently received some perquisites from their respective employers. Later the wife left the architectural and engineering firm and joined another architectural partnership known as SAA Partnership, Brunei. While they were working in Brunei, a house known as No 11A Jalan SS2/68 Petaling Jaya, Selangor (`PJ property`) was purchased for the sum of M$180,000 with the help of a loan of M$120,000 from Malayasia Building Society Bhd (`MBSB`) and was registered in their joint names. There was a dispute as to the financial contribution made towards the purchase of this property. Each alleged that the entire financial contribution was made by him or her and we shall deal with this in a moment. The property was sold in December 1984 for the sum of M$193,000 to the wife`s sister, and after payment of the amount owing to MBSB and other expenses, the balance of the proceeds, according to the wife, amounted to M$104,745.94, part of which was subsequently applied towards the purchase of their matrimonial home in Singapore.

The husband`s marriage to his first wife was dissolved on 31 August 1983, and the parties to these proceedings were married only on 25 April 1984 at the Registry of Marriages in Johore Baru. In that year or thereabout, they returned to Singapore. By that time they already had their second son, born in 1982. The wife joined Singapore Polytechnic as a lecturer with a starting salary of $3,500, while the husband joined Ngee Ann Polytechnic, also as a lecturer, but with a starting salary of $3,000. The husband left Ngee Ann Polytechnic after a few months and joined Fujitec Corporation with a starting salary of $3,200 per month. In 1985 their third son was born.

In April 1985, the property, 69 Fulton Road, Singapore, was purchased for the sum of $435,000, which became their matrimonial home. It was the case of the wife that that property was acquired by her sole effort and the entire financial contribution came from her. However, the husband disputed this and contended that there was also financial contribution made by him towards the purchase of the property, although not to the extent as the wife had contributed. We shall deal with this question of contribution in detail shortly.

Between 1987 and 1992 the parties bought and sold no less than three properties, namely:

Particulars Date of Date of sale

of property purchase

(a) 63-B West Coast Way September 1987 July 1989

Hin Seng Garden

Singapore 0512

(b) 369 Holland Road August 1988 April 1990

#13-05 Allsworth Park

Singapore 1027

(c) Block 1005 Teresa June 1991 July 1992

Ville #04-01

Lower Delta Road

Singapore 0409

There was some dispute as to the source of funds used for these transactions and the application of the proceeds realized. However, for the purpose of this appeal nothing turns on these transactions.

On 23 July 1992 the wife filed a petition for divorce on the ground that the marriage had irretrievably broken down in that the husband had behaved in such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with him. The husband did not contest the petition and the decree nisi was granted on 11 November 1992. The wife was given custody of all the children. At about this time, the husband was charged with having committed several offences of corruption and was convicted. He served a term of imprisonment from September 1992 to July 1993.

Issue

The main dispute between the parties is on the division of their matrimonial assets. In addition to their matrimonial home, the husband and wife have funds in their respective CPF accounts. At the material date, the credit balance of the husband`s funds in his CPF ordinary account was $234,003.70, and the wife`s balance in her CPF ordinary account was $10,846.27. The learned trial judge took into account the total of all the matrimonial assets acquired by the husband and wife during the marriage, less the liabilities of the wife, and then made a division of the assets between them. He held as...