Chan Pui Yin v Lim Tiong Kei

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 02 September 2011
• Date: 02 September 2011
• Docket Number: Divorce Transferred No 5623 of 2008
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Chan Pui Yin

Plaintiff

and

Lim Tiong Kei

Defendant

[2011] SGHC 200

Belinda Ang Saw Ean J

Divorce Transferred No 5623 of 2008

High Court

Family Law—Matrimonial assets—Division—Matrimonial home—Duty of full and frank disclosure—Husband was absent spouse and father during marriage—Wife having full-time maid to assist her with household chores—Whether asset should be considered matrimonial asset and be available for division—Whether adverse inference should be drawn—What should be impact of adverse inference on proportion of matrimonial assets to be awarded—Section 112 Women's Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed)

The parties were divorced in 2009 after being married for more than 17 years, and the matrimonial ancillary matters fell to be determined. The plaintiff wife was 58 years old at the time the orders were made in 2011, and the defendant husband was 61 years old. They have one child, a daughter who was 19 years old in 2011. The two most significant assets in issue were two landed properties known as the Goldhill property, worth $3.8 m, and the Dunearn property, worth $9.75 m.

The defendant worked and lived in Brunei for the past 18 years as at the time the orders were made in 2011, and would only see his family occasionally. The plaintiff worked full-time as a bank associate, and while the defendant was in Brunei, she lived with her parents-in-law (although her mother-in-law passed away in 2008) and her child at the Goldhill property. The defendant paid for all the family and household expenses, repairs and maintenance to the Goldhill property, and from 2003 to 2009 provided the plaintiff with a monthly allowance of $1,500.

Both the Goldhill property and the Dunearn property were registered in the defendant's sole name and he argued for the exclusion of both of these from the division exercise. He claimed that the Goldhill property was really his parents' matrimonial home. Although counsel conceded that the Dunearn property was acquired during the marriage and thus a matrimonial asset within s 112 (10) of the Women's Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) ; nevertheless it should be excluded from division because the parties had never lived there, the plaintiff had not made any financial contribution to the Dunearn property, and her non-financial contributions to the marriage could not support its inclusion as a matrimonial asset.

The plaintiff had a full-time maid to assist with the household chores and the defendant claimed that several of his many siblings would assist in supervising the child. The defendant claimed that he maintained regular telephone and e-mail contact with his family, but it was not disputed that he had and continued to have a difficult relationship with his daughter.

The plaintiff's indirect contributions included taking care of the child, attending to her parents-in-law, and investing in shares with funds provided by the defendant, as a joint effort by both parties to increase the family wealth.

With regard to the duty to make full and frank disclosure of the all information relevant to the ancillary proceedings, both parties accused the other of having breached this by concealing the true extent of their respective assets.

Held:

(1) The Goldhill property was the matrimonial home. Taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, it was thought just and equitable that the plaintiff should receive a 30% share in the Goldhill property based on a valuation of $3.8 m: at [3], [11] and [37].

(2) Any attempt to exclude a property from the pool of matrimonial assets had to be strictly scrutinised as such exclusion could prejudice the court's duty to achieve a just and equitable division in all the circumstances of the case: at [17] and [18].

(3) On the evidence, the Dunearn property was not a proper case for exclusion and would be included within the pool of matrimonial assets for division. The plaintiff had no involvement in the Dunearn property because the defendant had, inter alia, preferred to turn to his siblings rather than the plaintiff when he wanted help: at [19] and [20].

(4) As for the plaintiff's indirect contributions to the marriage and welfare of the family, the salient feature of this case was the family's long term living arrangement in which the defendant was an absent spouse and father. The plaintiff was effectively a single parent, and help from the defendant's relatives to take care of the child should not be regarded as his contribution through proxies: at [24], [25] and [30].

(5) Although the plaintiff had a full-time maid, this did not mean that her indirect contributions were minimal. Cogent evidence needed to be produced to establish that a spouse had made little or no indirect contribution to the marriage. On the evidence, there was no sign of abdication of parental responsibility by the plaintiff towards the child: at [30] and [31].

(6) The court was entitled to draw adverse inferences against parties which fail to make full and frank disclosure of all information relevant to the ancillary proceedings. An adverse inference was drawn if there was a prima facie case of non-disclosure of material facts about a matter which could properly be taken into account in arriving at a fair and equitable division: at [39].

(7) There was evidence contained in several e-mails - between the defendant and his sister - that revealed a state of affairs where the defendant and his sister were secretive about the defendant's net worth, and the former actively promoted this secrecy to keep the plaintiff in the dark. The defendant had, inter alia, kept from the plaintiff, and hence failed to make full and frank disclosure of: (a) the nature and whereabouts of about $2.58 m, being en bloc sales proceeds of his half-share in a condominium unit; (b) that the defendant had undisclosed assets in Brunei; (c) that the defendant's sister traded in shares for herself and the defendant: at [41] to [50].

(8) Accordingly, an adverse inference was drawn against the defendant. On the evidence it was impossible to estimate the value of the undisclosed assets and add a corresponding amount to the pool for division; and instead it was found just and equitable to award the plaintiff a further 10% of the value of the disclosed pool of matrimonial assets. The plaintiff was to be awarded a total of 30% of the disclosed assets of about $10.9 m: at [38] and [52].

AHJ v AHK [2010] SGHC 148 (refd)

BG v BF [2007] 3 SLR (R) 233; [2007] 3 SLR 233 (folld)

Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai Huah [2007] SGCA 21 (folld)

Lee Chung Meng Joseph v Krygsman Juliet Angela [2000] 3 SLR (R) 965; [2001] 1 SLR 579 (folld)

Lim Choon Lai v Chew Kim Heng [2001] 2 SLR (R) 260; [2001] 3 SLR 225 (folld)

NK v NL [2007] 3 SLR (R) 743; [2007] 3 SLR 743 (folld)

Ong Boon Huat Samuel v Chan Mei Lan Kristine [2007] 2 SLR (R) 729; [2007] 2 SLR 729 (refd)

Pang Rosaline v Chan Kong Chin [2009] 4 SLR (R) 935; [2009] 4 SLR 935 (folld)

Tham Lai Hoong v Fong Weng Sun Peter Vincent [2002] 1 SLR (R) 391; [2002] 4 SLR 464 (folld)

Yeo Chong Lin v Tay Ang Choo Nancy [2011] 2 SLR 1157 (refd)

Women's Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) s 112 (2) (d) (consd) ;ss 112 (2) , 112 (2) (a) , 112 (10)

Carrie Gill (Harry Elias Partnership LLP) for the plaintiff

Imran Hamid and Edith Chen (Tan Rajah & Cheah) for the defendant.

Belinda Ang Saw Ean J

Introduction

1 The parties, Mdm Chan Pui Yin (‘the Plaintiff’) and Mr Lim Tiong Kei (‘the Defendant’) were divorced after being married for more than 17 years, and the matrimonial ancillary matters came before me for determination. These included the division of the matrimonial assets, the issue of custody, care and control for the only child of the marriage, Dawn Lim Yu Fen (‘Dawn’) , and the issue of maintenance for the Plaintiff and Dawn. I made the following orders on 3 May 2011:

5. Orders made:-

1. (a) The Plaintiff and Defendant are to have joint custody of their daughter, Dawn, with care and control to the Plaintiff.

2. (b) The Defendant shall have liberal access to Dawn, including overnight access.

3. (c) The Defendant is to pay maintenance to Dawn at $2,500 per month with effect from 3 May 2011.

4. (d) The Defendant is to pay maintenance to the Plaintiff at $1 per month with effect from 3 May 2011.

5. (e) (i) The Plaintiff is awarded the sum of $1,140,000 being 30% of the matrimonial home valued at $3,800,000.

   (ii) The Plaintiff is awarded the sum of $3,285,238.60 being 30% (inclusive of adverse inference drawn against the Defendant) of all remaining assets valued at $10,950,795.34.

   (iii) Consequently, the Defendant is to pay the Plaintiff the sum of $3,491,253.39 being the total award due to the Plaintiff less the value of the assets in the Plaintiff's sole name.

   (iv) The sum of $3,491,253.39 is to be paid in three instalments as follows:-

   1. (a) The sum of $1,140,000 by 3 August 2011;

   2. (b) The sum of $1,175,626.70 by 3 November 2011;

   3. (c) The sum of $1,175,626.70 by 3 February 2012

(v) The sum of $103,000 due from the Plaintiff to the Defendant is to be deducted from the 1 st instalment payment.

(vi) The Plaintiff and Dawn are to move out of the matrimonial home within 7 days of receipt of the 1 st instalment payment or the date of the Transfer of the Plaintiff's 30% share in the matrimonial home based on a valuation of $3,800,000, whichever is the earlier.

2 The Defendant has appealed against that part of the Order of Court dated 3 May 2011 that pertains to paras 5 (e) (ii) , (iii) , and (iv) . In short, the appeal is against the Plaintiff's share of 30% of all remaining matrimonial assets valued at $10,950,795.34. The matrimonial assets in the common pool for division are tabulated in Annexure A to this grounds of decision (‘Grounds of Decision’) . They included the property known as 804 Dunearn Road, Singapore 289671 (‘the Dunearn property’) and registered in the sole name of the Defendant, a unit...