Chia Kum Fatt Rolfston v Lim Lay Choo

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Warren Khoo L H J
• Judgment Date: 31 August 1993
• Neutral Citation: [1993] SGHC 203
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 458 of 1992
• Date: 31 August 1993
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1993
• Plaintiff Counsel: Jason Lim (David Ong & Lim)
• Citation: [1993] SGHC 203
• Defendant Counsel: Mohan Singh (B Mohan Singh & Co)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Circumstances and parties' respective contributions in terms of money' kind or services,Cohabitation,Family Law,Division of property,Division according to parties' contributions rather than equal division,Principles applicable

This is a dispute between an unmarried couple concerning the ownership of a flat known as 43 Mimosa Road, #03-45 Mimosa Park (`the property`).

The parties became acquainted in or about February 1988. Around April 1988, they began living together in the plaintiff`s studio apartment at South Buona Vista Road. The studio apartment, however, was too small for them. There was also discussion about marriage. They started looking for another home.

On 30 April 1990, the plaintiff obtained an option to purchase the property. He paid the option fee of $5,000. On 7 May 1990, he exercised the option, paying a further sum of $35,800, the balance of 10% of the purchase price of $408,000. At the same time, the plaintiff obtained credit facilities of $370,000 from the Bank of Singapore Ltd. This was made up of overdraft facilities of $270,000 and a 20-year housing loan of $100,000. These facilities were confirmed on 10 May 1990 and were in his name alone.

By a letter dated 30 May 1990, the plaintiff`s solicitors informed the vendors` solicitors that the defendant`s name was to be included as a party to the purchase. The purchase of the property was duly completed on 16 July 1990 in the joint names of both. The sum of $368,825 due on completion was paid by the plaintiff with the aid of the $370,000 credit facilities.

A few months later, the defendant made several payments into the overdraft account which the plaintiff held at the Bank of Singapore Ltd. These payments were made by two cheques of $21,857.93 and $6,531 and $2,000 in cash, amounting to $30,388.93.

Around the middle of 1991, however, the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant came to an end. The plaintiff then wished to sell the property but the defendant refused. On 20 January 1992, the plaintiff`s solicitors wrote to the defendant while she was in Hong Kong, informing her of his intention to sever the joint tenancy and to divide the ownership of the property in proportion to their respective contributions towards the purchase price. Without prejudice negotiations were entered into. No agreement was reached. In another letter dated 11 April 1992, the plaintiff`s solicitors offered the defendant 50% of the net proceeds of sale. In a letter dated 11 May 1992, the defendant`s solicitors requested that the property remain unsold and instead be rented out at the best possible rental and that all outgoings be apportioned equally.

On 19 May 1992, the plaintiff took out this originating summons for an order for sale of the property and division of the proceeds. At the hearing, counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the parties` shares in the equity of the property should be in proportion to their respective financial contributions, while counsel for the defendant contended that the parties should have equal shares.

I decided in favour of the plaintiff, and now give my reasons.

The...