Kwee Lee Fung Ivon v Lim Gordon
Judge | Lai Siu Chiu J |
Judgment Date | 29 October 2013 |
Neutral Citation | [2013] SGHC 228 |
Citation | [2013] SGHC 228 |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Published date | 13 November 2013 |
Docket Number | Divorce Suit No DT 301 of 2010 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Christopher De Souza/Lionel Leo/Joel Chng (Wong Partnership LLP) |
Defendant Counsel | Loh Wai Mooi, Sandy Lim and Joey Quek (Bih Li & Lee) |
Subject Matter | Family Law,Matrimonial Assets,Division,Maintenance |
Hearing Date | 13 August 2013,25 July 2013,24 July 2013,26 July 2013,30 July 2013,12 August 2013 |
These proceedings were to decide outstanding ancillary matters between Kwee Lee Fung Ivon (“the Wife”) and Lim Gordon (“the Husband”). This followed the granting of an Interim Judgment on 17 December 2010.
BackgroundThe couple are medical doctors and were married on 3 June 1985. The Wife and Husband are 54 and 61 years old respectively. As at the time of the hearing, the Wife was working as a resident physician at Tan Tock Seng Hospital. The Wife comes from a well-to-do family. She is a daughter of the second wife of the late Henry Kwee, who owned the Pontiac Land Group which has interests in hotels and properties in Singapore and elsewhere. The Husband is currently an obstetrician and gynaecologist in private practice at Gleneagles Medical Centre (“Gleneagles”).
The Wife qualified as a doctor in 1985. Before the marriage, the Wife was an assistant doctor at Richard Choo & Partners (“RCP”) located at Liat Towers, earning a monthly salary of S$3,000. She ceased working soon after marriage but resumed practice some 20 years later in 2006. There are five children from the marriage, three boys born between 1986 and 1990 and a pair of twins (girls) born in 1992. The Wife left the matrimonial home on or about 3 January 2009 to live in a rented flat but returned later of her own accord.
By a consent judgment granted on 22 August 2011, both parties were granted joint custody of the three youngest children of the marriage
The ancillaries that were outstanding and which needed this court’s determination were (i) the division of the matrimonial assets and (ii) the Wife’s maintenance. To support their respective cases, the Wife filed six while the Husband filed nine affidavits. It is fair to say that the relationship between the parties is acrimonious.
Division of Matrimonial Assets The parties assetsIt was not disputed that the parties jointly own the following assets:
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
In addition, the parties have joint accounts with the following banks with the following balances:
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
The Husband has other assets in his sole name and these are:1
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
The Husband’s assets also included 13 NTUC Income Foundation and/or Education and/or Incomeshield insurance policies that he had purchased for each of the five children. He also has an NTUC Incomeshield policy no XXX195 in which the Wife is the beneficiary.
The Wife contended,
Since the Husband had also admitted that he only needed about S$2.1m for the children’s education, it meant that there was a surplus of at least S$1.2m in the Trust. The Wife herself estimated that the Husband would only need S$1.2m as a Further, as the Husband had admitted that monies from DB Joint Bank Account 1 and DB Joint Bank Account 2 had gone into a trust fund known as The Grateful Trust (“the Trust”), the Trust was a matrimonial asset. The Trust had assets worth around S$3.3m. As will be discussed further below (at [43] ff), the husband claimed that the Trust was set up to finance his children’s overseas education. reasonable sum to educate the children to a first degree level. Consequently, the rest of the funds in Trust should be returned to the matrimonial asset pool for distribution.
The Wife further alleged that the husband had siphoned off monies from their various joint accounts (including the DBS Joint Account mentioned at [10]) to service the mortgage on the Ash Grove property. She therefore alleged that the Ash Grove property was a matrimonial asset subject to division. She denied the Husband’s claim that he had borrowed monies from his mother and sister to part-fund the purchase, arguing that he had produced no evidence to support their loans.
The Wife also accused the Husband of failing to disclose the following:
On her part, the Wife disclosed the following assets as solely owned by her:
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
The Husband pointed out that the Wife failed to disclose the following assets until he raised the issue:
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
Before I deal with the parties’ respective submissions, I should point out that this court had heard a related application in Originating Summons No 209 of 2013 (“OS 209/2013”) which was taken out by the Wife’s...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
JBB v JBA
...matter [2013] 1 SLR 476 at [29]; BCB v BCC [2013] 2 SLR 324 at [41]; BJS v BJT [2013] 4 SLR 41 at [56]; Kwee Lee Fung Ivon v Lim Gordon [2013] SGHC 228 at [89]; ANH v ANI [2014] SGHC 184 at [12]; Guo Ningqun Anthony v Chan Wing Sun [2014] SGHC 56 at [126]; AYM v AYL and another appeal [2014......
-
JBB v JBA
...matter [2013] 1 SLR 476 at [29]; BCB v BCC [2013] 2 SLR 324 at [41]; BJS v BJT [2013] 4 SLR 41 at [56]; Kwee Lee Fung Ivon v Lim Gordon [2013] SGHC 228 at [89]; ANH v ANI [2014] SGHC 184 at [12]; Guo Ningqun Anthony v Chan Wing Sun [2014] SGHC 56 at [126]; AYM v AYL and another appeal [2014......
-
Equity and Trusts
...having to rely on any illegal act. Therefore, the alleged illegality did not defeat the trust claim. 15.6 Kwee Lee Fung Ivon v Lim Gordon[2013] SGHC 228 is relevant to this section in discerning the court's attitude towards a trust in the context of division of matrimonial assets. In this c......