Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai Huah

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeLai Siu Chiu J
Judgment Date03 October 2006
Neutral Citation[2006] SGHC 177
Plaintiff CounselMary Ong (Mary Ong & Company)
Published date04 October 2006
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Defendant CounselR Joethy (Joethy & Co) and Peter Tio (Cheo & Tio)
Subject MatterFamily Law,Matrimonial assets,Division,Apportionment of assets,Section 112(2) Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed)

3 October 2006

Lai Siu Chiu J:

1 Koh Bee Choo (“the Wife”) who was the petitioner in Divorce Petition No 358 of 2004 (“the Proceedings”) against Choo Chai Huah (“the Husband”), applied to the High Court for the ancillary issues to be resolved, after she was granted a decree nisi by the Family Court on 20 April 2004. The ancillary matters which came up for hearing before me related to:

(a) the division of the matrimonial assets;

(b) maintenance of the Wife; and

(c) maintenance of two sons of the marriage who were in the care and control of the Wife.

2 After three hearings, I made the following comprehensive orders:

(a) The Husband was to continue to pay the Wife on or before the first day of every month, a monthly sum of $3,000 as maintenance apportioned as to $1,500 for the Wife and $750 for each of the two sons.

(b) The Husband was to continue to bear the expenses of the matrimonial home at 53 Hume Avenue #07-02 Parc Palais (“the Parc Palais flat”) for utilities (water, electricity and gas) and cable television, as well as the hire-purchase instalments for vehicle no SDZ302U (“the Wife’s car”) and its road tax and insurance charges. The Husband was to pay for the utilities until such time as the Parc Palais flat was disposed of which would be no earlier than October 2006 with completion for sale to take place no earlier than the last day of the sons’ national examinations.

(c) The Husband was to continue to pay the fees and living expenses of the daughter until she completed her university course in architecture in Australia.

(d) The parties were to have liberty to apply to the Family Court on the issue of maintenance after the Parc Palais flat had been sold.

(e) The Wife was to have the entire net sale proceeds of the Parc Palais flat which she would utilise to rent alternative accommodation for herself and the children at not more than $2,000 rental per month (inclusive of maintenance charges) for a period not exceeding 24 months (but inclusive of an option to renew for 12 months).

(f) The Wife was to have 50% of the Husband’s Central Provident Fund (“CPF”) savings and would have a charge on the moneys in his ordinary and special accounts until such time as the CPF Board was able to release the charged moneys to the Wife.

(g) The Wife was to have 50% of the Husband’s other assets, in particular, in all branches of Mandarin Dental Centre Pte Ltd (“MDC”) which shares would be deemed to include the 60,000 shares transferred to the Husband’s father.

(h) The Husband would authorise the Wife to write to all major local banks including, but not limited to, United Overseas Bank (“UOB”), Development Bank of Singapore Limited and/or Post Office Savings Bank, Overseas Chinese Banking Corporation (“OCBC”), Malayan Banking and the Bank of China, to ascertain if the Husband maintained any accounts or fixed deposits. If there were accounts (with credit balances) and fixed deposits with any bank, the Wife would be entitled to 50% of those balances. The Wife was to bear the banks’ charges relating to her inquiries.

(i) The Husband would undertake to sell 346 Balestier Road #05-13 Ritz Mansion (“the Ritz Mansion property”) by October 2006 and if he had utilised his CPF savings for the purchase, the Husband was to refund those withdrawals to his CPF account upon completion of the sale and render a statement thereof to the Wife’s solicitors.

(j) The Husband was to transfer 1,000 City Development Ltd and 500 OCBC shares to the Wife.

(k) The parties were to have liberty to apply to the Family Court on the issue of procuring another property for the accommodation of the Wife and children after June 2008.

(l) The Husband was to pay costs fixed at $3,500 to the Wife.

3 The Wife was dissatisfied with my decision and has filed a notice of appeal (in Civil Appeal No 68 of 2006) specifically against the orders I made in [2(b)], [2(e)], [2(g)] and [2(k)] above.

The chronology of events

4 I shall first set out the significant milestones in the parties’ marriage:

(a) In 1976, the parties started cohabiting; the Wife was then 18 while the Husband was 20 years of age; the Wife worked as a computer typist while the Husband was a dentistry undergraduate;

(b) In April 1984, the parties registered their marriage;

(c) On 20 June 1984, the daughter Zhu Hui was born; the Wife stopped working;

(d) On 2 February 1988, the first son Zhu Xiang was born;

(e) On 5 March 1990, the second son Zhu Chuan was born;

(f) In August 1996, the Parc Palais flat was purchased;

(g) In July 2003, the Husband left the Parc Palais flat to live with the party cited, Sun Chang Yan (“Sun”), who is from mainland China; the couple reside at the Ritz Mansion property and have a son;

(h) On 7 February 2004, the Wife commenced the Proceedings;

(i) On 15 April 2004, a consent interim maintenance order of $3,000 per month was granted to the Wife, for her and the two sons;

(j) On 20 April 2004, a decree nisi was granted to the Wife based on the Husband’s unreasonable behaviour.

5 In regard to the orders now under appeal, the 48-year-old Wife submitted the following claims at the hearing:

(a) she wanted the Parc Palais flat to be sold and the entire net proceeds given to her absolutely;

(b) she requested a 50% share or more of the Husband’s other assets which included the Ritz Mansion property, two properties in Johor Baru, a property in Perth, Australia, a business in Hangzhou, China, bank accounts in Australia and Johor Baru, stocks and shares, a Mazda motor vehicle, life insurance and other investment-linked insurance policies;

(c) maintenance of $6,000 per month for herself, or alternatively, a lump sum of $1,080,000 equivalent to 15 years’ maintenance; and

(d) a monthly sum of $1,335 as maintenance for each of the two sons and $3,000 per month for the daughter.

6 I turn now to the affidavits of means filed by the parties for the Proceedings. On her part, the Wife filed three affidavits. The Wife deposed the parties were married for 20 years and were together even longer as a couple. She took care of the family full-time after the birth of the daughter, raised the children and took credit for the sterling academic performance of the older son and the musical accomplishments of the younger son. Between 1989 and 1996, the Wife claimed she helped the Husband in book-keeping and prepared the accounts for his dental practice; she received no remuneration for her services. This claim was denied by the Husband.

7 Prior to October 2003, the Wife clamed that in addition to his bearing all the monthly outgoings, the utilities charges, the mortgage of the Parc Palais flat and the hire-purchase instalments of her car, etc, the Husband provided her with an additional sum of $3,500 to $4,000 to cover expenses such as food, groceries, petrol, the sons’ pocket money, the sons’ tuition fees and her own personal expenses. In addition, the Husband paid the daughter’s university fees and living expenses amounting to $2,750 per month. Consequently, the Wife complained that she could not make ends meet on the interim maintenance order of $3,000 per month granted by the Family Court: see [4(i)] above.

8 The 50-year-old Husband not unexpectedly opposed the Wife’s claims. In regard to her claim for maintenance, he contended $3,000 per month for the Wife and $2,670 for the sons were excessive and he could not afford the sums in any event. The Husband asserted he was living on borrowed money (overdraft banking facilities) as his monthly expenditure of $17,460.40 (which included the Wife’s and children’s maintenance and maintenance of his son by Sun) exceeded his average monthly income of $12,000 from his dental practice at MDC. The monthly maintenance of $1,800 to Sun for Zhu Xuan, the six-year-old son by Sun, was evidenced in a maintenance order of the Subordinate Courts dated 22 June 2004.

9 The Husband’s income was corroborated by his income tax assessments that were exhibited to two of his affidavits. For 2001 the Husband earned $114,758.47, for 2002 he earned $170,895.22, for 2003 he earned $166,194.20 and for 2004 he earned $72,555.87, which meant his monthly income was much less than $12,000. The Wife, however, repeatedly claimed that the Husband had other sources of income which he had failed to disclose. She referred in particular to his rental income from his Malaysian properties and to a joint venture business he apparently had in China.

10 The Husband clarified that one of the Johor properties he owned (in Mukim Tebrau) (“the Mukim Tebrau property”) had been sold in 1994 for RM200,000 against an acquisition price of RM144,619 in 1990 and the money, less the redemption amount due and owing to RHB Bank, had already been expended. The other Johor property (at 45 Jalan Pinang) had been vacant since 30 September 2003 after the last tenant left.

11 In regard to the Ritz Mansion property, the Husband deposed that he did not disclose it in his affidavit of means as he did not consider it part of the matrimonial assets. It was the home of Sun whom he intended to marry once the decree nisi herein was made absolute. Moreover, the Husband took a loan of $448,000 from OCBC Bank to part-finance the purchase price of the Ritz Mansion property, at $560,000. The Husband claimed he paid $36,000 cash while Sun contributed $20,000 cash towards the purchase. The Wife had exhibited to one of her affidavits a title search her lawyers had conducted on the property and it appeared therefrom that the CPF Board had a charge on the same, registered on 27 June 2003. Upon inquiries of counsel for the Husband, the court was informed that the Husband had utilised his CPF contributions to help pay for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai Huah
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 10 April 2007
    ...what maintenance should be ordered in favour of the Wife. These resulted in the following orders (see Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai Huah [2006] SGHC 177 (“the GD”) at (a) The Husband was to continue to pay the Wife on or before the first day of every month, a monthly sum of $3,000 as maintenance......
  • Public Prosecutor v Poh Ting Ting and Neoh Sok Hoon Audrey
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 17 May 2013
    ...and which requires that the sentence imposed should be commensurate with the responsibility of the Accused - see Tan Kay Beng v PP [2006] SGHC 177 ]. I was therefore led to the view that a just sentence for Poh and Neoh which encapsulates the twin principles of deterrence and rehabilitation......
  • TZQ v TZR
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 18 January 2019
    ...2012,33 a period of nine years.34 The Plaintiff relied on a number of cases to support his submission. In Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai Huah [2006] SGHC 177 (“Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai Huah”), the parties had cohabited together for eight years before they registered their marriage in 1984. During......
  • Public Prosecutor v Khairul Zaman Bin Mamon Basir
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 30 March 2007
    ...which required that the sentence imposed should be commensurate with the responsibility of the Accused. In Tan Kay Beng v PP [2006] SGHC 177, VK Rajah J laid down the following 32. Deterrence must always be tempered by proportionality in relation to the severity of the offence committed as ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Family Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2006, December 2006
    • 1 December 2006
    ...Regarding the pool of other assets, 22% of which was in the wife”s name, the wife was given a 40% share. In Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai Huah[2006] SGHC 177, the parties had a 30-year relationship though a 22-year marriage, and three children. The wife was given half of the main assets and the ......

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