Chan Tin Sun v Fong Quay Sim

Judgment Date12 May 2014
Date12 May 2014
Docket NumberDivore Transferred No 1835 of 2011
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Chan Tin Sun
Plaintiff
and
Fong Quay Sim
Defendant

Tan Siong Thye JC

Divore Transferred No 1835 of 2011

High Court

Family Law—Maintenance—Wife—Whether misconduct of wife should result in lower maintenance sum ordered

Family Law—Matrimonial assets—Division—Wife poisoned husband during later stages of marriage—Whether misconduct of wife should result in lower division of assets for wife

The husband filed for divorce on 15 April 2011. The ground for divorce is that sometime in 2004, the wife started to poison him by adding arsenic, in the form of insecticide, into his tea and food. The wife was subsequently sentenced to one year's imprisonment for causing hurt to the husband, an offence under s 328 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed). The husband suffered from arsenic poisoning which had had a lasting effect on his health.

The wife filed a counterclaim alleging the husband's unreasonable behaviour as a ground for divorce. She claimed that the husband had neglected her and verbally abused her. A psychiatric report diagnosed the wife to be suffering from a long history of chronic spousal emotional and verbal abuse.

The decree nisi was granted on 15 December 2011. The ancillary issues of division of matrimonial assets and maintenance of the wife were the main areas of contention between the parties. The issues before the court were: (a) whether the wife should be given a smaller share, or no share at all, of the matrimonial assets as a result of her poisoning the husband; (b) whether an adverse inference should be drawn against the husband for failing to account for $832,737.50 which were drawn by him from a bank account that constituted part of the matrimonial assets; and (c) whether the wife's act of poisoning should result in no or a lower lump sum for maintenance being ordered in her favour.

Held:

(1) The court's enquiry was focused upon the direct and indirect contributions of both spouses so as to achieve an equitable division of the matrimonial assets. It was not the case that any act of misconduct of either spouse would give rise to a reduction in his or her share of the matrimonial assets. There had to be some nexus between the misconduct and the contributions of either spouse which was the focus of the court's enquiry when deciding on the division of matrimonial assets: at [19] to [21] .

(2) The wife's act of poisoning the husband did not negate all her indirect contributions to the family. There was no relation between her act of poisoning him and her prior indirect contributions to the family. These indirect contributions had to still be recognised. Also, an order as to the division of matrimonial assets was not punitive in nature: at [22] and [23] .

(3) The wife's act of poisoning did, however, impact her indirect contributions in the form of her caregiver role as regards looking after the husband from 2004 onwards after she began to poison him. Instead of caring for her husband, she caused him harm by poisoning him. Therefore, her indirect contributions towards her husband declined significantly from 2004 onwards. This did not mean that the wife did not contribute at all. She had nonetheless contributed in other ways such as keeping the household in order and paying for other miscellaneous household expenses: at [25] and [26] .

(4) This was a marriage of 34 years with one child. The husband was the main financial provider of the family. Although the wife did not directly contribute to the purchase of the matrimonial properties she had made significant financial contributions towards the family in other ways such as financing the son's tertiary education. She also made important indirect non-financial contributions to the family in her role as a homemaker. The fact that the husband required costly medical care in the future was also relevant. In the absence of any adverse inference drawn, an equitable division would be to award the wife 35% and the husband 65% of the matrimonial assets: at [34] to [36] .

(5) The husband had withdrawn a total of $832,737.50 from a bank account which constituted part of the matrimonial assets. He could only account for $127,833.47 in the form of medical expenses. An adverse inference should therefore be drawn against the husband to increase the wife's division of the matrimonial assets by 7% such that the final division is in the proportion of 58:42 in favour of the husband: at [42] to [46] and [56] .

(6) Section 114 (2) of the Women's Charter required this court to have regard to the conduct of the parties when ordering maintenance of a wife. Hence the misconduct of the parties could be taken into consideration. Nonetheless, only misconduct that was both obvious and gross such that the other party could be said to be substantially blameless for the breakdown of the marriage should be considered. It would not be considered when both parties were substantially responsible: at [60] to [63] .

(7) The wife's poisoning of the husband could be said to have substantially caused the breakdown of the marriage. However, the husband could not be said to be substantially blameless. The wife's act of poisoning was in retaliation to the husband's emotional and verbal abuse of her. Nonetheless, the wife reacted in a grossly disproportionate manner by resorting to poisoning the husband. Her conduct had to result in a lower sum of maintenance being ordered. Further taking into account the husband's poor health as a result of the poisoning and the potential medical expenses he would incur in the future, a lump sum maintenance of $18,000 was ordered: at [64] to [68] .

AYQ v AYR [2013] 1 SLR 476 (folld)

BCB v BCC [2013] 2 SLR 324 (folld)

BMJ v BMK [2014] SGHC 14 (refd)

Chan Yuen Boey v Sia Hee Soon [2012] 3 SLR 402 (refd)

Fong Quay Sim v PP Criminal Motions Nos 34 of 2011 and 36 of 2010 and Magistrate's Appeal No 183 of 2010; [2011] SGHC 187 (refd)

Harnett v Harnett [1973] Fam 156 (refd)

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

NI v NJ [2007] 1 SLR (R) 75; [2007] 1 SLR 75 (folld)

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

Ong Chen Leng v Tan Sau Poo [1993] 2 SLR (R) 545; [1993] 3 SLR 137 (refd)

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

Tan Bee Giok v Loh Kum Yong [1996] 1 SLR (R) 130; [1996] 2 SLR 188 (refd)

Wachtel v Wachtel [1973] Fam 72 (refd)

ZD v ZE [2008] SGHC 225 (refd)

Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 328

Women's Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) ss 112 (1) , 112 (2) , 114 (1) , 114 (2) (consd) ;ss 112 (2) (h) , 114 (1) (b) , 114 (1) (e)

Andy Chiok, Kelvin Ho and Vanessa Ho (Michael Khoo & Partners) for the plaintiff

Wong Chai Kin (Wong Chai Kin) for the defendant

Judgment reserved.

Tan Siong Thye JC

Introduction

1 The plaintiff-husband is 74 years old while the defendant-wife is 72 years old. They were married on 29 March 1977. It was a marriage of 34 years. Arising from this marriage, they have one son, Chan Vi Chaya (Chen Weicai), who is 36 years old. He is a veterinarian working in Hong Kong.

The issues

2 The wife is claiming a fair and equitable division of the matrimonial assets. She is also asking for lump sum maintenance. The husband, on the other hand, refuses to give her a share of the matrimonial assets. He also does not wish to pay her any maintenance. The husband's main reason for objecting to the wife's claims is that she had previously tried to kill him by poisoning him with arsenic.

Divorce proceedings

3 On 15 April 2011, the husband filed for divorce. The wife, on the other hand, filed a counterclaim alleging the husband's unreasonable behaviour as a ground for divorce.

4 The husband's ground for divorce is that sometime in 2004, the wife started to poison him with arsenic (PP v Fong Quay Sim [2010] SGDC 189 at [1]; upheld in Fong Quay Sim v PP Criminal Motions Nos 34 of 2011 and 36 of 2010 and Magistrate's Appeal No 183 of 2010; [2011] SGHC 187). On 27 May 2010, the wife was sentenced to one year's imprisonment for causing hurt to the husband by adding arsenic, in the form of insecticide, into his tea and food, an offence under s 328 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (PP v Fong Quay Sim [2010] SGDC 224; upheld in Fong Quay Sim v PP). Consequently, the husband suffered from arsenic poisoning which caused him to suffer from anaemia and liver cirrhosis, as noted by Choo Han Teck J in Fong Quay Sim v PP at [18].

5 The wife's counterclaim was on the basis that the husband had neglected her and had also verbally abused her. She was diagnosed to have suffered from a long history of chronic spousal emotional and verbal abuse. Her unhappiness with the husband led her to poison him so as to get back at him (PP v Fong Quay Sim [2010] SGDC 224 at [6]).

6 On 15 December 2011, the Family Court granted an interim judgment of divorce to both the husband and wife on their claim and counterclaim respectively.

Division of matrimonial assets

7 For the division of matrimonial assets, I shall first identify the operative legal principles that are germane to this case. Thereafter, I shall discuss the facts together with these axiomatic principles.

Just and equitable principle is the bedrock for the division of matrimonial assets

8 Section 112 (1) of the Women's Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) prescribes the just and equitable principle applicable in the division of matrimonial assets:

112.- (1) The court shall have power, when granting or subsequent to the grant of a judgment of divorce, judicial separation or nullity of marriage, to order the division between the parties of any matrimonial asset or the sale of any such asset and the division between the parties of the proceeds of the sale of any such asset in such proportions as the court thinks just and equitable.

Section 112 (2) of the Women's Charter also lists a number of non-exhaustive factors that the court has to take into...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Chan Tin Sun v Fong Quay Sim
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 15 January 2015
    ...AQS v AQR [2012] SGCA 3 (folld) Bateman v Bateman [1979] Fam 25 (refd) BCB v BCC [2013] 2 SLR 324 (refd) Chan Tin Sun v Fong Quay Sim [2014] 3 SLR 945 (overd) Clark v Clark [1999] 2 FLR 498 (refd) Evans v Evans [1989] 1 FLR 351 (refd) Fong Quay Sim v PP Criminal Motions Nos 34 of 2011 and 3......
1 books & journal articles
  • Family Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2014, December 2014
    • 1 December 2014
    ...parent to demonstrate this. Division of matrimonial assets Whether misconduct should be a factor 16.40 In Chan Tin Sun v Fong Quay Sim[2014] 3 SLR 945 (Chan Tin Sun (HC)), the couple divorced after being married for 34 years. Thewife was 72 while the husband was 74 years old. The wife was c......

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