Foo Ah Yan v Chiam Heng Chow
Judge | Chao Hick Tin JA |
Judgment Date | 20 February 2012 |
Neutral Citation | [2012] SGCA 15 |
Citation | [2012] SGCA 15 |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Published date | 27 February 2012 |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 58 of 2011 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Cheah Kok Lim (Cheah Associates LLC) |
Defendant Counsel | Michael Moey Chin Woon (Moey & Yuen) |
Subject Matter | Family Law,Ancillary powers of court,Maintenance,wife |
Hearing Date | 18 January 2012 |
This was an appeal by the wife against a decision of the High Court ordering lump sum maintenance of $75,000, to be paid 14 days after the wife transfers a property back to the husband (see
This case concerned the obligations of the respondent husband to maintain the appellant wife after the dissolution of their 13.5 year long marriage. The parties were married on 11 October 1995, and by the time the ancillary proceedings had commenced, the wife was 60 years old and the husband was 72 years old. As there were no children of the marriage, and the wife did not claim a share of the matrimonial assets, the only ancillary matter before this court was that of maintenance of the wife.
The parties resided in a double storey corner terrace house during the marriage. The husband retired in 1996, shortly after the marriage. He continued to receive an income of $2,600 per month, constituted by rental of $1,800, an annuity of $350 from his National Trades Union Congress (“NTUC”) insurance policy1 and allowances from the children from his previous marriage.2 The wife, who was a full time accounts clerk and bookkeeper drawing a monthly salary of $2,550,3 also stopped working shortly after the marriage.4
Several factual disputes took centre stage during the proceedings below. Firstly, there was a dispute over whether the husband had maintained the wife during the marriage. The wife claimed that maintenance had been provided, although, as the Judge noted, her position regarding the quantum of maintenance allegedly provided had been inconsistent (see the GD at
At a hearing before the Judge on 26 April 2011, the husband made an offer of a lump sum payment of $75,000 payable over three monthly instalments provided the wife re-transferred a property in Hainan, Republic of China, known as Unit 15B Lion City Apartment (“the Hainan property”), back to him.9 It was not disputed that the Hainan property, purchased in 200010 and registered in the wife’s name, was wholly paid for by the husband.11 The wife did not argue that the Hainan property was a gift to her.12
Decision of the High Court The Judge found that the wife had been financially independent throughout the marriage (see the GD at
The Judge held that, but for the husband’s offer, he would have awarded the wife a lump sum of no more than $48,300 (see the GD at
The issues which arose before this court were as follows:
As alluded to at
Counsel for the wife, Mr Cheah Kok Lim (“Mr Cheah”), argued that proof of maintenance during the marriage should not be the chief focus since the Act does not require a wife to produce such proof before she may claim maintenance
In response, counsel for the husband, Mr Michael Moey (“Mr Moey”), argued that as the husband had never maintained the wife during the course of the marriage, there was no reason why he had to do so now.18 Mr Moey argued that the husband was, in any case, only obliged to provide the wife with rental of a
The court derives its power to order maintenance from s 113 of the Act. Section 114 of the Act was modelled on s 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (c 18) (UK) (“the 1973 UK Act”). The 1973 UK Act is a consolidating act, which repealed and re-enacted s 5 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970 (c 45) (UK) (“the 1970 UK Act”), prior to the amendment in 1984 referred to below (at
114.—(1) In determining the amount of any maintenance to be paid by a man to his wife or former wife, the court shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case including the following matters:
- the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;
- the financial needs, obligations and responsibilities which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;
- the standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of the marriage;
- the age of each party to the marriage and the duration of the marriage;
- any physical or mental disability of either of the parties to the marriage;
- the contributions made by each of the parties to the marriage to the welfare of the family, including any contribution made by looking after the home or caring for the family; and
- in the case of proceedings for divorce or nullity of marriage, the value to either of the parties to the marriage of any benefit (for example, a pension) which, by reason of the dissolution or annulment of the marriage that party will lose the chance of acquiring.
[emphasis added]
Generally, assessment of the appropriate monthly multiplicand begins with the wife’s financial needs as derived from her particulars of expenditure, scaled down for reasonableness: see the Singapore High Court decision of
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chan Yuen Boey v Sia Hee Soon
...The legal principles relevant to the power under s 113 were recently discussed by the Court of Appeal in Foo Ah Yan v Chiam Heng Chow [2012] SGCA 15 (“Foo Ah Yan”). Briefly, the assessment of the appropriate monthly multiplicand begins with the wife’s financial needs as derived from her par......
-
Goh Keng Boey v Ong Jim Hwee
...including any contribution made by looking after the home or caring for the family. The Court of Appeal in Foo Ah Yan v Chiam Heng Chow [2012] SGCA 15 explained that section 114 of the Women's Charter sets out a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered when ordering maintenance after......
-
UMX v UMY
...the wife’s submission for a lump sum maintenance to tide her over after the divorce. In Foo Ah Yan v Chiam Heng Chow [2012] 2 SLR 506; [2012] SGCA 15, the Court of Appeal held that “the overarching principle embodied in s 114(2) of the Women’s Charter is that of financial preservation, whic......
-
Foo Ah Yan v Chiam Heng Chow
...Ah Yan Plaintiff and Chiam Heng Chow Defendant [2012] SGCA 15 Chao Hick Tin JA , Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA and Judith Prakash J Civil Appeal No 58 of 2011 Court of Appeal Family Law—Ancillary powers of court—Maintenance—Wife—Section 114 (2) Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed) Family Law......