Chua Soo Fong v Chai Woon Wuy

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Kathryn Low Lye Fong
• Judgment Date: 11 April 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGDC 130
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Divorce Suit No. D742/2011
• Year: 2014
• Published date: 23 May 2014
• Hearing Date: 14 January 2014,25 February 2014,28 January 2014
• Plaintiff Counsel: Plaintiff appearing in person
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Selvaraj (M/s S K Kumar Law Practice LLP)
• Citation: [2014] SGDC 130

District Judge Low Lye Fong, Kathryn: Introduction

The parties were married on 8 June 2009. The Plaintiff Chua Soo Fong, aged 47, is a Group Financial Manager. The Defendant Chai Woon Wuy, aged 50, is a Tuition Teacher. The wife filed for nullity of the marriage on 16 February 2011 on the ground that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the wilful refusal of the Defendant to consummate it. Interim Judgment was granted to her on 29 April 2011 and costs of $1,500 were awarded to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff subsequently applied in Summons No. 2033 of 2011 to set aside the Interim Judgment. She also applied for leave to amend the Writ and Statement of Claim for nullity of the marriage on the ground it is void as the Defendant was born a female. The application was dismissed by the District Judge. However, on appeal to the High Court in RAS 69 of 2012, the Honourable High Court Judge set aside the Interim Judgment, save for costs fixed at $1,500 on 23 May 2012. The marriage was declared void on the ground that it was solemnised between persons who are not respectively male and female. The Defendant was further ordered to pay the Plaintiff disbursements fixed at $600.

After several applications by the parties for discovery, the ancillary matters were heard before me on 24 January and 28 January 2014. The issues to be determined were: Division of the matrimonial home; Division of other matrimonial assets; Maintenance for the Plaintiff; and Costs.

The Court of Appeal has clarified in ADP v ADO [2012] SGCA 6, that the powers of the court to order division of matrimonial assets and maintenance under ss 112 and 113 of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the Act”) in a “nullity of marriage”, encompasses both void and voidable marriages.

After considering the evidence in the affidavits of assets and means filed by the parties and their submissions, I made the following orders: The matrimonial home at 75 Jurong West Central 3 #10-22, Singapore 648337, shall be sold in the open market within 6 months of the order and the proceeds shall be applied as follows: towards repayment of the outstanding mortgage loan; reimbursement of $200,000 to the Plaintiff, being prepayment of the mortgage loan made by her on 26 April 2013 and 30 April 2013; costs and expenses of sale; and The balance proceeds shall be divided in the ratio of 70% to the Plaintiff and 30% to the Defendant respectively; The Plaintiff shall have the option to purchase the Defendant’s share of the matrimonial home to be exercised within 3 months of the order. The Plaintiff shall bear the costs of the transfer if the option is exercised; The Registrar of the Subordinate Courts is empowered to sign all necessary documents in relation to the sale or transfer of the matrimonial home in the event that either party fails to do so within 14 days of written request; There shall be no maintenance for the Plaintiff; Each party shall retain other assets in their sole names; The Plaintiff shall allow the Defendant to retrieve the safe that belongs to the Defendant’s late mother from the matrimonial home. The safe is to be opened in the presence of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s solicitors and an inventory of the contents taken. Any item that belongs to the Plaintiff shall be returned to the Plaintiff; There shall be no order as to costs; and Liberty to apply.

The Defendant has appealed against part of the above order, being the whole of paragraph 1) in relation to the division of the matrimonial home. Subsequent to the filing of the appeal, the parties attended before me to clarify the orders as the Defendant wished to include clauses which set out the method by which the market valuation of the property is to be ascertained in the event that the Plaintiff exercises the option to purchase the Defendant’s share and to provide that the parties shall continue to contribute towards repayment of the mortgage until the transfer or sale of the property. The Plaintiff also wished to have conduct of the sale of the property should it be sold in the open market. The additional clauses are not the subject of the appeal. I set out the reasons for my decision in relation to paragraph 1) of my order below.

Division of the matrimonial home Background

The Plaintiff is a Group Finance Manager with a gross monthly income of $8,500 while the Defendant is a Tuition Teacher with a monthly income of $3,000 to $3,300. The parties met each other through an internet portal sometime in 2002. It was not disputed that the parties had lived together at various times during the seven years prior to their marriage in 2009. The Defendant claimed that he was born a female and had undergone a sex change operation subsequently. He had therefore, informed the Plaintiff that he would not be able to consummate the marriage nor have children with her. The Plaintiff on the other hand claimed that she was not aware that the Defendant was born female and that she only discovered the fact after she had obtained the Interim Judgment for nullity of the marriage and the Defendant had moved out of the matrimonial home.

The Plaintiff claimed that she wanted to purchase the matrimonial home sometime in March 2009 in her sole name. The Defendant then asked to be named a joint owner as a condition for marrying her. It was her evidence that he had been taking loans from her during the seven years prior to the marriage. She has exhibited acknowledgements of debts given by the Defendant to her commencing in 2003 up to 2008 at item 26 at pages 251 to 261 of her first affidavit of asset and means filed on 3 December 2012. He also owed more than $80,000 to several banks. She claimed that although the parties had instructed M/s Lee Bon Leong & Co, their solicitors for the purchase of the property, that it is to be held by them as tenants-in-common in equal shares, she had made most of the payments towards the down payment and repayment of the mortgage loan to OCBC Bank. She had also paid for all the other expenses, including property tax, maintenance, utilities, insurance and even groceries. The Defendant only paid for half of the utilities bills after his family moved into the matrimonial home in October 2009 until November 2010, when they moved out.

Conversely, the Defendant claimed that the parties had agreed to contribute equally towards the purchase of the matrimonial home and to hold the property as tenants-in-common in equal shares. He claimed that the Plaintiff had paid the 1% option fee of $7,300 and he had paid for the furnishing of the property, which amounted to more than $3,650, which is half of the option fee. He had issued two cheques for $14,600 and $54,750 dated 8 April 2009 and 4 June 2009 respectively, being his share of the cash payments for the purchase of the property. He had also issued a cheque for $8,464 dated 8 April 2009, being payment for his share of the stamp duty that was to be paid. Copies of the cheques are exhibited at pages 12, 13 and 17 of his fourth affidavit of assets and means filed on 31 July 2013. He has also exhibited...