Lee Min Jai v Chua Cheow Koon

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 22 December 2004
• Neutral Citation: [2004] SGHC 275
• Date: 22 December 2004
• Subject Matter: Whether application on grounds of trial solicitor's failure to render appropriate advice should be allowed,Matrimonial assets,Family Law,Petitioner wife appealing against district judge's dismissal of application to rescind part of consent order in decree nisi relating to transfer of her share in matrimonial home to respondent husband for certain sum of money,Matrimonial home
• Docket Number: Divorce Petition No 501 of 2004 (Registrar's Appeal from the Subordinate Courts
• Published date: 22 December 2004
• Defendant Counsel: Colin Kang (East Asia Law Corporation)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: James Chia (James Chia and Co)

22 December 2004

Choo Han Teck J:

1 This was an appeal by the petitioner (wife) against an order by the district court judge dismissing her application to rescind part of a consent order in the decree nisi granted on 27 July 2004, and to substitute a fresh order in its place.

2 The petitioner, a Korean national, married the respondent, a Singapore national, on 16 October 2000 when they were about 32 and 33 years old respectively. The couple had lived together for about three years although the marriage lasted four years before the decree nisi was granted. They have no children.

3 The part of the decree nisi that the petitioner sought to rescind was cl 3(b) which reads as follows:

That upon full payment of $50,000.00 by the Respondent to the Petitioner, the Petitioner shall transfer her share to all title, rights and interest of the matrimonial flat known as and situate at 27, Paya Lebar Road, #12-06, Singapore 409042 entirely to the Respondent. That the Respondent do bear all costs and expense in the said transfer.

The petitioner’s grounds for this application were that she consented to the orders without realising that she was a joint owner of the matrimonial flat. Mr Chia, her counsel, on appeal before me, submitted that had she known, she would not have consented to the sum of $50,000. She should have been, and ought to be given, at least half the value of the flat, valued at $520,000 as at 13 August 2004. He conceded that the petitioner was represented by a solicitor and that she had told her (then) solicitor that she had a share in the matrimonial flat. But she did not know the nature of her interest and so did not mention this aspect. Mr Chia argued that the solicitor ought, in those circumstances, to have made a search of the register because, had he done so, he would have known that she was a joint-owner and would have advised her accordingly. Mr Chia submitted that the solicitor was thus in breach of his duty to the petitioner. He argued that any reasonable solicitor would have caused a search of the register to be made in those circumstances.

4 Mr Chia referred to the authority of Wee Ah Lian v Teo Siak Weng [1992] 1 SLR 688 at 698, [39] and [40], in which Karthigesu JA held that:

The matter does not end there. We must still decide whether in the exercise of our discretion under s 106 of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353) we ought to uphold the settlement. Section 106 does not specifically provide for the validation of agreements honestly negotiated by the parties but it does give jurisdiction to the court to order a division of matrimonial assets when granting a decree of divorce. The section provides for two distinct situations. Sub-sections (1) and (2) deal with the position where the matrimonial assets were...