Chan Pui Yin v Lim Tiong Kei

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Belinda Ang Saw Ean J
• Judgment Date: 02 September 2011
• Neutral Citation: [2011] SGHC 200
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DT No 5623 of 2008
• Year: 2011
• Published date: 12 September 2011
• Hearing Date: 08 October 2010,03 May 2011,21 January 2011,29 March 2011
• Plaintiff Counsel: Carrie Gill (Harry Elias Partnership LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: Imran Hamid and Edith Chen (Tan Rajah & Cheah)
• Citation: [2011] SGHC 200

Belinda Ang Saw Ean J:Introduction

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:-

(a)The Plaintiff and Defendant are to have joint custody of their daughter, Dawn, with care and control to the Plaintiff.(b)The Defendant shall have liberal access to Dawn, including overnight access.(c)The Defendant is to pay maintenance to Dawn at $2,500 per month with effect from 3 May 2011.(d)The Defendant is to pay maintenance to the Plaintiff at $1 per month with effect from 3 May 2011.(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:-(a)The sum of $1,140,000 by 3 August 2011;(b)The sum of $1,175,626.70 by 3 November 2011;(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 1st instalment payment.

(vi) The Plaintiff and Dawn are to move out of the matrimonial home within 7 days of receipt of the 1st 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.

The Defendant has appealed against that part of the Order of Court dated 3 May 2011 that pertains to paragraphs 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. They included the property known as No 804 Dunearn Road, Singapore 289671 (“the Dunearn property”) and registered in the sole name of the Defendant, a unit known as #08-14 Golden Mile Complex, a commercial property in which the Plaintiff has an interest, her CPF monies, shares, insurance policies and bank account balances. The Dunearn property with a current value of $9.75m is the single most significant asset in the pool of matrimonial assets available for division. The total worth of the assets in the Plaintiff’s name in the pool was $933,985.21. The orders on division were for monetary sums to be paid to the Plaintiff and they were not intended to be orders for the sale of the properties. The mechanism for achieving the division ordered was for the parties to retain the assets in their respective names and for the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff the sum of $3,491,253.39 being the difference between the total sum awarded less the total worth of the assets in the Plaintiff’s name ($4,426,238.60-$933,985.21 = $3,491,253.39).

There is no appeal against the orders made in respect of the division of the matrimonial home, namely the property known as No 27 Goldhill Drive, Singapore 308975 (“the Goldhill property”). The Goldhill property was held to be the matrimonial home as on the facts in evidence the property clearly satisfied the statutory definition in s 112(10) of “matrimonial assets” in the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed).

There is also no appeal against the orders on maintenance.

I should mention that the Defendant had initially fought the Plaintiff for sole custody, care and control of Dawn. However, counsel for the Defendant, Mr Imran Hamid (“Mr Imran”) subsequently confirmed that the Defendant would agree to an order granting both parents joint custody of Dawn with care and control to the Plaintiff. Counsel for the Plaintiff, Ms Carrie Gill (“Ms Gill”) confirmed the Plaintiff’s consent to such an order, if made.

Since the Defendant’s appeal is limited to paragraphs 5(e)(ii),(iii) and (iv) of the Order of Court dated 3 May 2011, for expediency, I will confine this Grounds of Decision to the division of the matrimonial assets.

The factual background

The parties were married on 26 February 1992. The Plaintiff instituted divorce proceedings against her husband, the Defendant, on 13 November 2008, and the Interim Judgment of Divorce IJ3515/2009 was granted on 12August 2009. The Plaintiff is presently about 58 years of age, and she works in the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce as an Associate, drawing a stated gross monthly income of $5,200. The Defendant is presently about 61 years of age and he runs his own trading company, Chop Nam Huat Sdn Bhd, in Brunei, drawing a stated net monthly income of BN$8,000. Dawn was born on 6 October 1992 and she will turn 19 this year. Dawn is a student at LASALLE College of the Arts.

According to the Plaintiff, the couple lived in the Defendant’s apartment known as #05-02, Silver Tower, a private condominium located along Cairnhill Road when they were first married (“the Silver Tower property”). After Dawn was born, the family moved to the Goldhill property which was home to Dawn and the Plaintiff for the last 18 years. The family’s living arrangements were that the Plaintiff and Dawn resided with the Defendant’s parents in the Goldhill property, with the Defendant working and living in Brunei for the most part of the year except for the occasional visits to his family in Singapore for 10-12 days at a time. This was the family’s living arrangement for the last 18 years. The Defendant admitted to being an absent spouse and father for the most part of the year except for the occasional visits to his family in Singapore, and the annual family vacations. Family life for Dawn was growing up with one parent in the same house as her paternal grandparents, and in a family environment where her father’s many siblings would frequently drop by the Goldhill property whenever they called upon their parents.

In the early years of the marriage, the Plaintiff had her mother live with herself and Dawn in the Goldhill property. Her mother would care for Dawn when the Plaintiff was out at work. She would prepare Dawn’s meals as well as accompany her to kindergarten and enrichment classes. This arrangement came to an abrupt halt when the Plaintiff’s mother fractured her hip in 1997, and she went to live with her other daughter.

Even though the Defendant had settled into living in Brunei, he paid for the maintenance and repairs to the Goldhill property, all the household expenses, family outings, transport and vacations. He also paid for Dawn’s expenses including expenses related to her studies and her daily allowance. The Defendant also paid for the two renovations to the Goldhill property. From 2002 or 2003, after the Plaintiff had depleted her savings on medical expenses for her parents and bad investments, the Defendant gave her a monthly allowance of $1,500. The Plaintiff contended that since September 2009, the Defendant had stopped giving her the monthly allowance and Dawn’s maintenance. In the past, the Defendant would leave behind pre-signed cheques with the Plaintiff to enable her to settle Dawn’s expenses and to provide for her monthly allowance. The Defendant’s sister, Cecilia, was tasked to handle payment of utilities bills and other outgoings from funds that were deposited into a POSB joint account which the Defendant had opened with Cecilia. The Defendant claimed that he had to trouble his sister because the plaintiff did not want to be bothered by this “chore”.¹

The Goldhill property was purchased by the Defendant’s father in 1968. It was transferred to the Defendant and his two brothers in 1974. Later on the Defendant took over his brothers’ shares. According to the Defendant, the shares were paid for by himself and his father. The Defendant became the registered owner of the Goldhill property on 8 June 1993.² It was the Defendant’s case that two-thirds of his interest in the Goldhill property was gifted to him by his father. His position was that the Goldhill property was not a matrimonial asset as it was his parents’ matrimonial home.³ The parties tendered valuation reports of the Goldhill property and for the purposes of division, and taking the average of the two valuations, the figure of $3,800,000 was treated as its current value. Notwithstanding the Defendant’s denial, I held that the Goldhill property was the matrimonial home based on the evidence before me (see [8] above).

The Silver Tower property was registered in the Defendant’s name. It was bought in 1984 some eight years before the parties were married. After marriage, the parties lived there for a few months until Dawn was born. The property was sold in an enbloc sale in 2007, and with the sale proceeds, the Defendant purchased the Dunearn property which was registered in his sole name. According to the Plaintiff, she wanted her husband to include her name as co-owner but he refused with the excuse that he had borrowed money to finance the purchase and he did not want her to be involved in the loan. There was only one property known as No 5 Springside Walk (“the Springside property”) that was owned by the couple in their joint names. The Springside property was a terrace house in Sembawang which was purchased in February 2001 (going by the option to purchase⁴), but it was eventually sold in 2007 at a loss.

Whether the Dunearn property should be considered...