Koo Shirley v Mok Kong Chua Kenneth

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeL P Thean J
Judgment Date07 March 1989
Neutral Citation[1989] SGHC 22
Citation[1989] SGHC 22
Date07 March 1989
Year1989
Plaintiff CounselJeane Wu (R Ramasan)
Docket NumberDivorce Petition No 24 of 1985
Defendant CounselAloysius Leng (Abraham Low & Partners)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Published date19 September 2003

Cur Adv Vult

The petitioner and the respondent were married on 22 March 1975, and they have three children, namely: (i) Ruth Mok Cheah Ling, born on 18 May 1976; (ii) Priscilla Mok Ai Ling, born on 14 October 1980, and (iii) Daniel Mok Chuan Qun, born on 24 September 1981.

On 14 June 1984, because of the unreasonable behaviour of the respondent, the petitioner left the matrimonial home taking along with her the three children.
On 7 January 1985 the petitioner presented this petition for divorce on the ground that the marriage had broken down irretrievably, and she relied on the fact that the respondent had behaved in such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with him. The petition was initially contested and an answer was filed. At that time, the three children were, and had been since 4 June 1984, in the de facto custody of the petitioner. The respondent on 4 July 1986 obtained an interim order giving him access to the three children at certain specific times and place. Subsequently, on 8 August 1988, on application by the respondent, leave was given for the answer to be withdrawn, and the petition thenceforth proceeded as uncontested. It came before me for hearing on 11 August 1988. The respondent was represented by his counsel at the hearing and did not dispute or challenge the evidence adduced by the petitioner of his unreasonable behaviour. I accordingly granted to the petitioner the decree nisi to be made absolute on the expiry of three months and ordered that (i) the custody of the three children, (ii) the maintenance of the petitioner and the three children and (iii) the division of matrimonial property be adjourned for further hearing in chambers. I also ordered the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings.

In due course, the three matters came on for hearing before me.
At the first hearing I could not dispose of the matters for two reasons. First, there was not enough time to hear arguments from both counsel, and secondly, the respondent had not given sufficient particulars of his means and assets in the affidavit filed by him with the result that it was not possible to resolve the questions of maintenance and division of matrimonial property. Much of his lengthy affidavit had been devoted to seeking to rebut his unreasonable behaviour which led to the breakdown of the marriage. That was an exercise in futility, as the fact of his unreasonable behaviour had been established at the hearing of the petition, and it was not open to him to resurrect such an issue. I therefore adjourned the hearing to another date and at the same time directed the respondent to file an affidavit setting out in full his assets and income and also made an interim order prohibiting the respondent from letting out the property, No 26, Alnwick Road, Singapore to anyone or permitting anyone (other than the petitioner and the children) to occupy it until further order. Subsequently, two affidavits were filed: one by the respondent sworn to on 17 November 1988 and one by the petitioner in reply sworn to on 25 November 1988. The matters then came on for hearing again on 28 November 1988 and at the conclusion I made an order as follows:

(i) that custody of the three children be given to the petitioner with access to the respondent as provided in the interim order of 4 July 1986;

(ii) that the respondent do pay to the petitioner for the maintenance of the petitioner and the three children a sum of $2,500 pm with effect from 1 December 1988;

(iii) that by way of division of the matrimonial property the respondent do transfer his share and interest in the matrimonial property, No 26, Alnwick Road, Singapore to the petitioner free from encumbrances and that such transfer to be effected and completed not later than three months from the date thereof;

(iv) that the respondent do deliver vacant possession of the property, No 26, Alnwick Road, Singapore to the petitioner not later than four weeks from the date thereof;

(v) that until the property, No 26, Alnwick Road, Singapore is transferred to the petitioner, the respondent be restrained from charging, selling or otherwise disposing of the property known as Blk 42, #01-04, Goodluck Garden, Singapore;

(vi) that the costs of the hearing of the matters be borne by the respondent, and

(vii) that the parties be at liberty to apply.



After the conclusion of the hearing an affidavit affirmed by the respondent`s solicitor, Mr Aloysius Leng, on 2 December 1988 was filed on behalf of the respondent purporting to give further particulars of the respondent`s assets.
I do not know precisely the purpose of this affidavit, but presumably it was filed in connection with an application to me to hear further arguments which I refused. I was not persuaded by the content of that affidavit to alter in any way the decision which I had made earlier.

On the question of custody of the three children, there was no dispute: the respondent had agreed that custody should be given to the petitioner and he only wanted access as provided in the interim order made on 4 July 1986.
Paragraph I of the order was therefore made in terms as agreed.

On the question of maintenance, there was a maintenance order made by the magistrate`s court on 11 December 1987, No MO 367 of 1987, under which the respondent was ordered to pay with effect from 1 January 1988 a sum of $2,100 pm for the maintenance of the petitioner and the children which sum was apportioned as follows: (i) $1,000 to the petitioner; (ii) $550 to the first child; (iii) $350 to the second child, and (iv) $200 to the third child.


Before me, the petitioner requested for the amount of maintenance to be increased to $2,728 pm, and gave a breakdown of the expenses justifying, the sum of $2,728 pm.
This increase was resisted by the respondent.

The petitioner is a housewife, and at the date of hearing she and the three children were staying at Blk 5000-J, #17-41, Lagoon View, Marine Parade Road, Singapore 1544 which was rented at a monthly rent of $500 pm.
The petitioner has been and is looking after the children, attending to the household duties such as cooking and washing for them. The respondent is at the present working in Japan. However, he did not specifically say the name of his employer but it appears from the certificate which he exhibited and marked `A` in his affidavit sworn to on 17 November 1988 that he is working in an organization called Asian Productivity Organization. Nor did he say the nature of his work or the operations of that organization. He said that his net monthly salary was approximately the equivalent of $6,164, out of which he said he had to repay a small sum to his employer in respect of an advance initially made on him. He did not mention anything about living and other allowances or other perquisite, monetary or otherwise, which he received or enjoyed. Notwithstanding my direction, he failed to make a full disclosure of his monthly income, as distinguished from merely his salary from his employment.

I do not believe that the equivalent of $6,164 is all that he is earning from his present employer.
I think he earns more than that. Prior to his present employment, he was working in Malayan Banking Berhad (the petitioner said he was working in The Malayan Finance Corporation Berhad which is a subsidiary of Malayan Banking Berhad) and was also a part-time lecturer at the National Productivity Board. According to the petitioner, his net salary for the year of assessment 1987 was $77,220.60 (about $6,435 pm); that was not denied by him. I would expect his income (as distinguished from net salary from his then employer) in 1987 and 1988 respectively to be more than that. He left Malayan Banking Bhd to join this Japanese organization in Japan, and one would expect that the total emolument from his new employer would exceed the total of what he received from Malayan Banking Bhd and National Productivity Board. There must have been some financial attractions or inducements to him to join this organization and work abroad. His financial position in terms of income must have improved. It is unfortunate that he did not produce or disclose his terms and conditions of service with his present...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • Koh Kim Lan Angela v Choong Kian Haw and Another Appeal
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 17 November 1993
    ... ... It was accepted in Shirley Koo v Kenneth Mok Kong Chua 2 that, for the purposes of the same word ... ...
  • Tan Bee Giok v Loh Kum Yong
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 8 November 1996
    ...ER 446 (folld) Koh Kim Lan Angela v Choong Kian Haw [1993] 3 SLR (R) 491; [1994] 1 SLR 22 (folld) Koo Shirley v Mok Kong Chua Kenneth [1989] 1 SLR (R) 244; [1989] SLR 342 (folld) Mills v Mills [1940] P 124; [1940] 2 All ER 254 (folld) Ng Hwee Keng v Chia Soon Hin William [1995] 1 SLR (R) 81......
  • Ching Seng Woah v Lim Shook Lin
    • Malaysia
    • Court of Appeal (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • NK v NL
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 19 July 2007
    ...of the matrimonial home. 44 In Tan Bee Giok ([23] supra),this court made reference to the cases of Koo Shirley v Mok Kong Chua Kenneth [1989] SLR 342 and Hoong Khai Soon ([28] supra) in deciding that where a property was held by the husband and wife as joint tenants, the proceeds of sale wo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Family Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2013, December 2013
    • 1 December 2013
    ...assets continues to be affirmed and applied by the courts. Early landmark decisions such as Koo Shirley v Mok Kong Chua Kenneth[1989] 1 SLR(R) 244 at [25] had already ‘approached the problem in a broad manner’. This broad brush approach has been adopted, endorsed and reiterated as the corre......
  • Family Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2010, December 2010
    • 1 December 2010
    ...in the exercise of its power under s 112 of the Women“s Charter. Early landmark decisions such as Koo Shirley v Mok Kong Chua Kenneth [1989] 1 SLR(R) 244 at [25] ‘approached the problem in a broad manner’. More recent Court of Appeal decisions, such as NK v NL [2007] 3 SLR(R) 743 (‘NK v NL’......

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