Go Li Li v Yeo Chew Liang

JudgeSuzanne Chin
Judgment Date04 May 2015
Neutral Citation[2015] SGFC 53
Citation[2015] SGFC 53
CourtFamily Court (Singapore)
Published date01 September 2015
Docket NumberDivorce Petition No.427 of 2014
Plaintiff CounselMs Lau Man Sai Rosina [The L.A. Law Chambers LLC]
Defendant CounselMr Gurdaib Singh s/o Pala Singh [Gurdaib, Cheong & Partners]
Subject MatterCatch Words: Matrimonial Assets Division Custody Care and Control Maintenance
Hearing Date19 March 2015
District Judge Suzanne Chin: Background

The parties were married on 3 December 1992 and there are 2 children to the marriage aged 21 and 19.

The defendant husband (“the Husband”) is an offshore shipping clerk while the plaintiff wife (“the Wife”) is a hair stylist.

The Wife commenced divorce proceedings on 27 January 2014 on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour. The Husband did not contest the application and Interim Judgement was granted on 26 March 2014. This was a long marriage which lasted for 22 years.

The Ancillary Orders

The ancillary matters came for hearing before me on 19 March 2015 and I made the following orders: In full and final settlement of the issues of relating to the division of property: That the Defendant’s rights, interests and share in the matrimonial flat at Block 114 Hougang Avenue 1 #08-1300, Singapore 530114 which is in the joint names of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, shall be transferred to the Plaintiff within three(3) months from the date of Certificate of Making Interim Judgement Final upon the Plaintiff paying to the Defendant a sum of $57,000. The Defendant shall be responsible for refunding into his CPF account, all amounts withdrawn in respect of the matrimonial property. The Plaintiff is to bear the costs and expenses of the transfer. This Order is made subject to the Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36) (“CPF Act”) and the subsidiary legislation made thereunder in respect of the Member’s CPF moneys, property and investment. The Board shall give effect to the terms of this order in accordance with the provisions of CPF Act and the subsidiary legislation made thereunder. The Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the Family Justice Counts under section 31 of the Family Justice Act (Act 27 of 2014) is empowered to execute, sign or indorse all necessary documents relating to matters contained in this order on behalf of either party should either party fail to do so within seven (7) days of written request being made to the party. That each party shall retain his or her own other assets that are in their respective sole names. That the Defendant shall provide a monthly maintenance of $350.00 for Cheryl Yeo Si Min and the said sum shall be remitted to the Plaintiff’s POSB Account with effect from 1 April 2015 and thereafter on the 1st day of each month. That the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff a nominal maintenance sum of $1.00 per month into the Plaintiff’s POSB account. Liberty to apply. No order as to costs.

Notice of Appeal

The Husband filed an appeal on 1 April 2015 against my orders relating to the division of matrimonial property and I now set forth the reasons for my decision.

Division of Matrimonial Assets and Maintenance

The matrimonial flat at Block 114 Hougang Avenue 1 #08-1300 Singapore 530114 (“the Matrimonial Flat”) which was in the joint names of both parties was a 3 room HDB flat. Other than the Matrimonial Flat, each of the parties held monies in their personal bank accounts as well as in their CPF accounts. The Husband also had a motor vehicle but after taking into account the outstanding loan on the motor vehicle, this was of little value.

The Wife’s direct contributions of $82,598.94 to the purchase of the Matrimonial Flat were from her CPF contributions. I also accepted that she had also spent $5,000 on renovations to the Matrimonial Flat but did not take into account amounts she submitted for the purchase of furniture as these should not be considered as direct financial contributions but as an indirect financial contributions. This was not disputed by the Husband. The Husband on the other hand had paid cash of $4,800. His CPF account showed that an amount of $50,000 had been contributed from his account and he took the position that this amount should be attributed to him. Counsel for the Wife however pointed out that this was in fact the HDB grant made to the parties upon purchase of the flat and accordingly should be attributed equally to both parties. I accepted the Wife’s position in this regard.

The Wife paid all household bills and bore all of the children’s expenses including...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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