Katherine Tang Woon Kiang v Luk King Hung alias Christina King-Hung Luk alias Christina Eu (Sued as the Administrator of the estate of Eu Keng Fai Fred alias Fred Eu Keng Fai alias Fred Eu alias Fred Keng-Fai Eu alias Eu Fred alias Eu, Fred Keng-Fai alias

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: G P Selvam J
• Judgment Date: 31 August 1999
• Neutral Citation: [1999] SGHC 229
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 05 April 2013
• Year: 1999
• Plaintiff Counsel: Andre Arul, Chew Kia Heng and Sheik Heikel Bafana (Arul Chew & Partners)
• Defendant Counsel: Timothy Kho and William Chan (David Lim & Partners)
• Citation: [1999] SGHC 229

JUDGMENT:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

The proprietary and Monetary claims

The apple of discord in this case is a strata property known as #08-21 Chatsworth Court ("the apartment" or "the Chatsworth apartment"). The plaintiff, Madam Katherine Tang Woon Kiang has a principal claim and a secondary claim. The first is for a declaration that the Estate of Fred Eu Keng Fai deceased held the Chatsworth apartment on trust for the plaintiff in respect of at least 50% of the apartment, or of such share of the apartment as the Honourable Court deems just in the circumstances. The other claim is for $72, 644.10. The apartment was purchased by and registered in the name of Mr Fred Eu Keng Fai in early 1973.

The facts : the wives

Katherine Tang lived in the apartment from the time of its purchase in 1973 until 1998, when she and her son Edmund Eu had to quit it under somewhat unhappy circumstances. They were ordered by the Court to do so.

Before I come to the crux of the matter I have to introduce the facts of the case. The span of the story extends from 1973 to 1998.

Fred Eu was the son of the late Eu Tong Sen a wealthy philanthropist. He had three wives serially: Mavis Eu, Katherine Tang and Christina King-Hung Luk.

Fred Eu was widowed by his first wife Mavis Eu in 1959. They had a daughter Ms Carol Ann Eu who now lives in USA. Katherine Tang married him in 1962 and divorced him 21 years later. They had two sons, Mr Alfred eu and Mr Edmund Eu. Fred Eu married Christina King-Hung Luk, the defendant in this case in 1988 and widowed her in 1993. She is the defendant as the personal representative of the Estate of Fred Eu, deceased under letters of administration obtained in Hong Kong and resealed in Singapore in October 1996.

The purchase price of the property was $220,000. Fred Eu bought it without borrowed money. The purchase was completed in 1973. The first two progress payments of $22,000 each were made by Katherine Tang. The first was in January 1973 by a cheque from her personal bank account in favour of Good Luck Enterprise Pte Ltd, the developers. The second was paid in March 1973 also direct to the developers by her solicitor who held her funds. The plaintiff did not allow her finances to mingle with Fred Eu. She was repaid the total amount of $44,000 in May 1993. This fact was not revealed by her. I shall say more about this later.

Over and above the two payments, in January 1973 Katherine Tang drew a cash cheque for $15,400. Fred Eu cashed it the same day. This amount was repaid the following day. Katherine Tang did not reveal this fact either.

Next year their relationship was strained over money matters but far from breaking point. "He would make promises but would not fulfil them", said she. Thus, the quality of their relationship in a way depended on the amount of money he gave her.

About this time Fred Eu came into some fortune from the estate of his father.

The divorce

On 2 September 1982 Katherine Tang filed her divorce petition against Fred Eu. She asserted that he had deserted her in 1976 and failed to provide regular maintenance. She had a second string to the bow, namely that they lived apart for at least four years immediately preceding her presentation of the petition. In addition, she sought joint custody of their two sons, Alfred Eu who was 19 years old and Edmund Eu who was 18. They both were studying in the USA at that time. She also asked for maintenance. More importantly, she sought an order for a division of property acquired during the marriage in such proportions as the Court might determine. She did not identify any property in the petition.

He filed an answer denying desertion. He desired to be heard on all claims. Fred Eu further asserted that he had paid US$100,000 to Katherine Tang in Hong Kong on the basis that she would relinquish all claims which she might have against his assets. She never denied receipt of that amount. A separation deed was prepared by Fred Eu’s lawyers but Katherine Tang refused to sign it. He went on to state that having received the US$100,000 Katherine Tang was estopped from claiming a share in his assets or monthly maintenance. Nevertheless, Katherine Tang wanted Fred Eu to file an affidavit of means in response to her claim for maintenance and division of matrimonial assets. He was ordered to do so by the Court. He did so on 3 May 1983. The important parts of his affidavit read as follows :

"4. My matrimonial home known as No 21-D Chatsworth Court, Chatsworth Road, Singapore, is owned by me.

5. The said matrimonial home is occupied by my wife, my 2 children when they return from their overseas studies and myself when I do return to Singapore.

6. The present value of the said matrimonial home is around S$1,300,000 to S$1,400,000.

7. The said matrimonial home is subject to a mortgage to Lee Wah Bank Limited.

8. My other assets are as follows :

(b) Landed properties

(i) Nos 33, 35A & 37, Club Street, Singapore (rent controlled)

(ii) Nos 22 & 22A Fraser Street Singapore (rent controlled)

(iii) 67, 67A & 67B Tanjong Pagar Road, Singapore (rent controlled)

(iv) No 21-D Chatsworth Court, Chatsworth Road, Singapore

(c) Beneficiary entitlement

(i) One-thirteenth share as beneficiary in the remaining assets in the estate of Eu Tong Sen deceased, which comprise mainly of the business known as Chop Eu Yan Sang in Hong Kong.

(ii) One-fourteenth share as beneficiary shareholder of Eu Tong Seng Ltd.

(e) Other assets

(i) S$55,064.51 in my CPF.

(ii) Jewellery worth about S$50,000

(iii) Furniture at no 21-D Chatsworth Court, Chatsworth Road, Singapore

(iv) Loan to Mercurynox Limited and Starnox Limited totalling HK$1,045,650

My liabilities

(a) Personal guarantee to Sah Sing Bank Ltd.

Banque Nationale De Paris and The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation for the total sum of HK$8,020,000.

(b) Expenditure of approximately S$10,000 a month maintenance of my wife and of my matrimonial home.

(c) Expenditure of approximately US$35,000 a year maintenance of my two children in the USA.

(d) Expenditure of approximately HK$8,000 a month on myself.

(e) Property tax liability for the said landed properties of S$2,896.48 per annum."

In December 1982 Fred Eu’s Lee Wah Bank account was overdrawn by $704,000 and in September 1983 by $676,000.

The divorce petition was heard on 12 September 1983. The answer was withdrawn. So it became an uncontested petition. Sinnathuray J granted a decree nisi to be made absolute in three months on the basis of the parties having lived apart for four years. There was an order for joint custody of the two boys. Prayers relating to maintenance and division of assets were adjourned to be heard in Chambers to be on a date to be fixed.

Plaintiff abandons the claim for division of matrimonial assets

Correspondence between the lawyers of the parties presented to me revealed that Katherine Tang asked for "a once and for all settlement and she would like to have the flat No 21-D Chatsworth Court transferred to her and a lump sum of $1m". Fred Eu rejected this. With regard to the matrimonial asset claims Katherine Tang said in evidence before me that Fred Eu wanted all assets, that is to say, assets in the names of both parties. In effect it meant that a property known as 36-J Cairnhill Court which was purchased in her name was to be included as matrimonial property for the purpose of the division. Under the law, he was entitled to insist on that. If that had been done, the evidence before me would justify the following comments and conclusions.

The purchase price of Chatsworth Court property was $220,000. The value of the property in 1982 was said to be between $1.3 million and $1.4 million. That value was an estimate based on a line of credit for $1m including an overdraft facility limited to $682,000 Fred Eu had on that property at that time. On 31 December 1982 he had exceeded the credit limit as he had withdrawn $704,149.38. At best the equity, was around $700,000. The Cairnhill Court apartment was purchased in the name of Katherine Tang about the same time the Chatsworth Court property was purchased. The information before me on the Cairnhill Court apartment was scant. There were notes in Fred Eu’s handwriting which he prepared probably in connection with the ancillary proceedings. It said, inter alia, as follows :

"36J Cairnhill Court

"Around Feb, 1973 gave her S$50,000 to be used as down payment on above flat. Balance of purchase price was to be financed and rental received to be used towards monthly repayment.

Overseas Union Trust Ltd financial S$100,000 for 10 years.

Took possession around May/June 1974.

Since 1974 all net income received was reported under my tax returns and I paid income tax liability."

"Madam Tang Woon Kiang/ Mrs Katherine Eu

36J Cairnhill Court

1974 May-August 1401

Sept-Dec 1445

1975 Jan-Dec 1445

Loan 100,000

Period 10 years

Should be paid in bulk April 1984.

Feb 9, 1973 73,000.00 Bal 10% and progress payment

May 30, 1974 30,603.50 Progress payment & reimbursements

Katherine Tang was most reticent about this property but did not deny what was stated in the notes of Fred Eu. asked when it was sold, her reply was : before the divorce in 1982. The lawyer who handled the sale of this property for her said in evidence before me that she was unable to produce the completion statement because it had been destroyed. However, the lawyer confirmed that the file was opened in November 1983 and that the completion was in March or April 1984 when all the instalments would have been paid. The sale was therefore after the divorce. Thus the full sale proceeds of Cairnhill Court property went into her kitty.

As to the Chatsworth apartment he had made his position very clear: He...