Go Li Li v Yeo Chew Liang
Judge | Suzanne Chin |
Judgment Date | 04 May 2015 |
Neutral Citation | [2015] SGFC 53 |
Citation | [2015] SGFC 53 |
Court | Family Court (Singapore) |
Published date | 01 September 2015 |
Docket Number | Divorce Petition No.427 of 2014 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Ms Lau Man Sai Rosina [The L.A. Law Chambers LLC] |
Defendant Counsel | Mr Gurdaib Singh s/o Pala Singh [Gurdaib, Cheong & Partners] |
Subject Matter | Catch Words: Matrimonial Assets Division Custody Care and Control Maintenance |
Hearing Date | 19 March 2015 |
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:
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