Lee Kok Yong v Lee Guek Hua (alias Li Yuehua)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tan Lee Meng J
• Judgment Date: 27 February 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] SGHC 26
• Published date: 28 February 2007
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Lim Say Fang (Tan Lee & Partners)
• Defendant Counsel: Tan Siew Kim (Lee & Lee)

27 February 2007

Tan Lee Meng J:

1 The appellant, Mr Lee Kok Yong, appealed against the decision of District Judge Jocelyn Ong (“the District Judge”), who dismissed his application to vary an order of court (“the order of court”) dated 30 July 2004 regarding the division of matrimonial assets and the payment of a lump sum maintenance of $20,000 to the respondent, his former wife, Mdm Lee Guek Hua. I dismissed the appeal and now give the reasons for my decision.

2 The parties were married on 17 September 1997. Shortly thereafter, they purchased No 31 Bangkit Road #08-03 Chestervale Singapore 679973 (the “matrimonial property”). The said property was purchased in both their names for $629,100.

3 The appellant alleged that the respondent left him in January 2000 and went to live with her parents.

4 In April 2004, the appellant filed a petition for divorce. The Decree Nisi, which was granted on 30 July 2004, was made absolute on 1 November 2004. During the divorce proceedings, the appellant was represented by counsel whereas the respondent was not. Even so, the parties managed to reach agreement on the division of matrimonial assets and the payment of lump sum maintenance for the purpose of a clean break between them. Their agreement was embodied in an order of court on 30 July 2004 (“the order of court”). The terms of the order of court included the following:

(a) The respondent was to transfer her share and title in the matrimonial property to the appellant after the latter refunded to her CPF account all monies utilised for the purchase of the said property, together with accrued interest.

(b) The appellant was to pay the respondent $20,000 as lump sum maintenance. This sum was to be paid in five instalments of $4,000 per month.

5 The appellant remarried in November 2004 and he and his new wife occupied the matrimonial property. However, he did not comply with the terms of the order of court regarding the matrimonial property and the lump sum maintenance.

6 In 2005, the appellant and his present wife moved out of the matrimonial home and in July 2006, their daughter was born.

7 As the appellant did not honour his commitment to refund money into her CPF account and to pay her the lump sum maintenance, the respondent instituted SUM 7921 of 2006 to enforce her rights under the order of court. In the meantime, the appellant sought to vary the said order of court by instituting SUM 7888 of 2006 to seek a reduction of the amount to be refunded to the respondent’s CPF account and the lump sum maintenance.

8 In the meantime, a buyer for the matrimonial property was found. On 7 September 2006, the District Judge varied the order of court by allowing the matrimonial property to be sold. She ordered that the costs and expenses of the sale of the matrimonial property were to be borne by the appellant. She also dismissed the appellant’s application to vary the order of court by reducing the amount to be refunded to the respondent’s CPF account and the quantum of the lump sum maintenance. She ordered the appellant to pay the long overdue lump sum maintenance within one month.

9 To date, the appellant has not paid the respondent the lump sum maintenance. Instead, he filed two appeals against the decisions of the District Judge.

RAS No 95 of 2006

10 RAS No 95 of 2006, which concerns the appellant’s application to vary the order of court to reduce the amount he has to pay into the respondent’s CPF account and the lump sum maintenance, will first be considered.

Variation of Order of Court

11 The appellant’s only ground for seeking a variation of the order of court was that he is not in as strong a financial position as he was in 2004 when the order of court was made. He claims that his income from his clothing business has dwindled and that the District Judge failed to take into account his material change of circumstances from mid-November 2004 onwards. As has been mentioned, he remarried in November 2004.

12 The respondent asserted that the appellant’s financial position is not as bad as that painted by him. She pointed out that he is a joint owner of a bungalow at 410 Pasir Panjang Road, which has an area of 579.4 square metres and he had stated that he spent $1,380 per month on his present wife. She also pointed out that the appellant claims that he gives his mother an allowance of $800 per month. As such, he should be able to honour his commitments under the order of court.

13 The appellant...