CVC v CVB

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD
• Judgment Date: 08 August 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] SGHC(A) 28
• Court: High Court Appellate Division (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 68 of 2022
• Hearing Date: 15 May 2023
• Citation: [2023] SGHC(A) 28
• Year: 2023
• Plaintiff Counsel: Yee May Kuen Peggy, Audrey Liaw Shu Juan and Tan Liqi Joseph (PY Legal LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Loo Ming Nee Bernice, Toh Jia Jing Vivian and Sophia Eliza Rossman (Allen & Gledhill LLP)
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Matrimonial Assets,Central Provident Fund,Division,Family Law ­,Maintenance,Child,Parental responsibility
• Published date: 08 August 2023

Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD (delivering the judgment of the court):

In this judgment, we touch on several issues arising from the division of the parties’ matrimonial assets upon the grant of a divorce. One of the issues involves the concept of ‘sharing’ assets with the other spouse in the context of determining the parties’ direct contributions. Another concerns whether the moneys in a spouse’s Central Provident Fund (“CPF”) account utilized for the purchase of property should be refunded to the spouse’s CPF account before or after the proceeds of the sale of the property are divided between the parties.

In this appeal, the appellant (the “Wife”) appeals against the orders of a Judge in the Family Division of the High Court (the “Judge”) in relation to the division of matrimonial assets, maintenance for the children, and costs. The Judge’s written grounds are published in CVB v CVC [2022] SGHCF 31 (“GD”).

Background

The parties were married on 3 January 2008 and have three children (the “Children”): B, born in July 2008; C, born in July 2012; and D, born in November 2013. The respondent (the “Husband”), who was 48 years old at the time of the hearing of the ancillary matters (“AM”) before the Judge, is a director of three car workshop companies (the “Car Workshop Businesses”). The Wife was 39 years old and employed as the company secretary for YY Berhad (“YY”) and the vice president of the “ZZ” group, which wholly owns YY. From 2008 to 2011, the parties resided in a rented apartment at Derbyshire Road. The parties then moved to a property at Leonie Hill (the “Leonie Hill Property”), which was a property held in the Husband’s sister’s name.

On 27 April 2017, the Husband filed a writ for divorce. Shortly after, the Wife moved out of the Leonie Hill Property with the Children, and filed her defence and counterclaim on 8 September 2017. Meanwhile, the parties had a consent order for the Husband to have interim access to the Children while the Children resided with the Wife. Interim judgment (“IJ”) for the parties’ divorce was granted on 9 May 2018. The AM hearing pertaining to the custody, care and control of the Children, the division of matrimonial assets, and maintenance for the Children was heard by the Judge in three tranches on 8 March, 22 June and 27 June 2022. The Judge made her orders on these issues on 27 June 2022, and issued her GD on 29 December 2022.

The decision below Custody, care and control

The Judge ordered that the parties were to have joint custody of the Children, with care and control to the Wife. Various orders in relation to the Husband’s access to C and D, the two younger children, were also made. These orders are not in issue in the present appeal.

Division of matrimonial assets Computation of the pool of matrimonial assets

The Judge made the following findings in relation to the parties’ joint assets that are relevant to this appeal: The 197 Bishan Street 13 Flat (the “Bishan Property”): The parties had purchased this flat in March 2013, but never resided in it. Instead, they rented it out from 2013 up to the point of the AM hearing. The parties agreed that the net value of the Bishan Property was $560,028.26, after deducting the outstanding mortgage sum from its market value. With respect to their direct contributions towards the acquisition of this flat, the Husband contends that in April 2008, he had transferred a sum of $400,000 to the Wife as a loan (the “2008 Transfer”) in order for her to purchase “Citibank bonds” with a view to using the proceeds to “finance properties in [the] parties joint names”. The Judge found that the Husband had indeed made the 2008 Transfer to the Wife (GD at [36] and [118]), and therefore attributed the Wife’s non-CPF contributions of $140,250 for the purchase of the Bishan Property to the Husband. The Judge arrived at a direct contribution ratio of 78:22 in favour of the Husband: GD at [119]. The shop unit at Concorde Shopping Centre (the “Concorde Unit”): The parties had purchased the Concorde Unit on 15 November 2010, and incorporated GG Pte Ltd (“GG”) on 16 November 2010 to hold the Concorde Unit. The parties are directors and equal shareholders of GG. The parties agreed that the value of the Concorde Unit is $660,000. The Concorde Unit was rented out by GG and the rental proceeds deposited in GG’s CIMB Account (the “GG Bank Account”). The Judge found that from April 2017 to 23 March 2020, the Wife directed rental proceeds of the Concorde Unit from the GG Bank Account to her personal bank account, amounting to a total of $49,000: GD at [26]. $3,697.69 was left in the GG Bank Account at the time of the AM hearing. In arriving at the ratio of the parties’ direct contributions, the Judge attributed to the Husband the sum of $85,793.35 that was paid by the Wife as completion moneys for the purchase of the Concorde Unit. This determination was made in light of the 2008 Transfer: see [6(a)] above and GD at [120]. The Judge thus arrived at a direct contribution ratio of 98:2 in favour of the Husband: GD at [120].

As for the parties’ solely acquired assets, the parties agreed on the value of their respective bank and securities accounts, insurance policies, and CPF accounts. This was noted by the Judge in a table setting out her calculations at [125] of the GD. Her findings in relation to the disputed items were as follows: The Car Workshop Business: The Car Workshop Business comprised three privately-owned Singapore companies of which the Husband had either the entire or a substantial shareholding in, as set out in the table below.

Company Name	Husband’s Shareholding
JJ Pte Ltd (“JJ”)	100%
KK Pte Ltd (“KK”)	70%
LL Pte Ltd (“LL”)	100%

On 4 September 2020 an independent valuation of the companies was directed by the Family Court. The independent valuer was Ms Yak Chau Wei (“Ms Yak”) of GAO Advisors Pte Ltd (“GAO Advisors”), who provided the court with two valuation reports on 31 May 2021 and 2 June 2022 respectively (we refer to these reports as “GAO’s First Report” and “GAO’s Second Report” respectively). The latter report was an update to the former report following the COVID-19 pandemic. On his own volition, however, the Husband, engaged Chay Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd (“Chay”) to prepare a valuation report as well (the “Chay Report”). The Judge rejected the Chay Report, noting that Ms Yak was well-qualified, and that the reports by GAO Advisors were sufficient (GD at [49]). The Judge agreed with the valuation arrived at in GAO’s Second Report, but also accepted the Husband’s argument that a discount for lack of marketability (“DLOM”) should have been applied to the valuation of JJ. As such, the Judge arrived at a valuation of $886,478.50 after applying a 25% DLOM to JJ: GD at [51]. Husband’s Offshore Companies: In the course of proceedings, the Wife alleged that the Husband had hidden assets worth $163m in various offshore companies. It appeared that it was for this reason that these proceedings were heard by the Family Division of the High Court, as it caused the alleged total value of the matrimonial assets to exceed $5m. In this regard, the Husband had in his affidavits disclosed his interests in various companies incorporated in Hong Kong and the British Virgin Islands. The Judge accorded no value to the Husband’s interests in these companies, finding that the Wife had not adduced sufficient evidence to substantiate her claims: GD at [80]. Sums allegedly dissipated by the Wife: The Husband submitted that between 6 July 2017 and 15 August 2017 (following the commencement of divorce proceedings), the Wife had made a “fire sale” of securities owned by her. The Husband claimed that the Wife failed to account for the proceeds of the sale amounting to $227,882.36 in her OCBC Account No. 58xxxxxxx and US$54,988.49 in her OCBC Account No. 50xxxxxxx. The Wife conceded to failing to account for $204,188.67 in the former account but accepted the Husband’s claim for the latter amount. The Judge held in favour of the Husband’s claim: GD at [125] (see Item 8 of the table set out in that paragraph). Sales proceeds of vehicles: The parties agreed on the values to be attributed to the various vehicles they had owned and/or sold. For the purposes of the present appeal, it is noted that in addition to the agreed amounts from the sale of vehicles, the Judge appeared to attribute at [125] of the GD (see Item 3(iii) of the table) the proceeds of $75,000 for the sale of a “Honda” to the Husband. Both parties in the present appeal agree that this was an erroneous inclusion, a point we return to later in our judgment.

The Judge held that “it would be neater to order the sale of both the [Bishan Property and the Concorde Unit] and award [the Husband] the lion’s share of the sale proceeds particularly the [Concorde Unit] for which he would receive 98% based on the “uplift” principle”: GD at [130]. In this connection, the Judge drew an adverse inference against the Wife in relation to the disclosure of her assets as her substantial earning power over the years suggested that she would have more assets than what she had declared. She also found that it was fair to accord both parties an equal ratio for their indirect contributions: GD at [121] and [131].

The Judge’s orders in relation to the division of matrimonial assets were as follows: 1. … The [Bishan Property] is to be sold within 180 days of the date of this Order with vacant possession and the sale proceeds are … divided 78% to the [Husband] and 22% to the [Wife]. 2. The [Concorde Unit] is to be sold in the open market within 90 days of the date of this Order. The net sale proceeds less sales commission, and other incidental fees and expenses, are to be apportioned 98% to the [Husband] and 2% to the [Wife]. 3. No value is to be attributed to the two (2) Malaysian Properties purchased by the...