Leong Choon Kum v Chia Kin Tuck

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lai Siu Chiu J
• Judgment Date: 19 April 2005
• Neutral Citation: [2005] SGHC 73
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2005
• Published date: 20 April 2005
• Plaintiff Counsel: Sarjeet Singh (Ong, Tan and Nair)
• Defendant Counsel: Koh Tien Hua and Michelle Elias (Harry Elias Partnership)
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure,Appeals,Registrar's appeals,By way of rehearing,Function of appellate court in relation to evidential findings and assessment by court below,Family Law,Matrimonial assets,Division,Whether just and equitable division,Whether broad-brush approach correctly applied,Role of precedents in division of matrimonial assets,Whether interest income earned by husband subject to division regardless of beneficial ownership of principal sum,Section 112 Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed),Matrimonial home,Whether property considered matrimonial asset,Whether wife's contributions relevant in determining share in matrimonial assets
• Citation: [2005] SGHC 73

19 April 2005

Lai Siu Chiu J:

The background

1 Chia Kin Tuck (“the husband”) and Leong Choon Kum (“the wife”) were divorced on 7 January 2000, when a decree nisi was granted on a petition filed by the wife in May 1998. They have two sons from the marriage. The ancillary matters came on for hearing before District Judge Koh Juat Jong (as she then was) pursuant to which she made certain orders on 1 August 2003. The husband filed Registrar’s Appeal No 720078 of 2003 (“the Appeal”) against the following orders made by the district judge:

(a) that the husband pay the sum of $300,000 to the wife as her share of the matrimonial assets;

(b) in the event that the High Court in Originating Summons No 554 of 2002 (“the OS proceedings”) finds that the property known as 19 Ringwood Road, Singapore 437415 (“the property”) belongs to the estate of the husband’s late mother and the husband is entitled to 50% of the property, the husband shall pay the wife a further sum equivalent to 15% of the husband’s additional 16.66% share in the property based on the value of the property at $5.2m;

(c) in the event that the Appeal Court in District Court (Transferred) Suit No 600872 of 2000 (“the Suit”) finds that the amount in dispute, viz $1m, was not handed by the husband to the wife, the husband shall pay the wife the additional sum of $1m as her share of the matrimonial assets;

(d) that the aforesaid sum of $300,000 and lump sum maintenance of $24,000 awarded to the wife be paid within 14 days of the date of the order;

(e) that the husband pay the wife $25,000 as fixed costs for the divorce proceedings and the hearing of the ancillary matters.

The husband prayed for the above orders to be set aside on the basis that the wife was not entitled to any share of any of the properties and/or assets set out in the orders, nor to the costs awarded to her.

2 Conversely, the wife filed Registrar’s Appeal No 720079 of 2003 (“the Cross Appeal”) against the decision of the district judge in awarding her $300,000 as her share in the matrimonial asset, asking for her share to be increased.

3 When the Appeal and Cross Appeal came up for hearing before me, counsel for the husband withdrew his client’s appeal on order (d) in [1] above, as a stay of execution had been granted subsequent to the husband’s filing of the Appeal.

4 After hearing the parties, I affirmed the orders under appeal made below in relation to the award of $300,000 made to the wife, but made the following adjustments:

(a) the wife’s share in the property would be 30% of the husband’s existing one-third share and if the court in Originating Summons No 554 of 2002 (“the OS”) increases the husband’s share, then the wife’s share shall be 30% of his increased share, based on a valuation of $5.2m;

(b) the wife’s 35% share of the husband’s cash assets shall be based on the reduced value of $2.05m instead of $3.5m;

(c) order (c) in [1] above to remain save for the adjusted sum;

(d) the husband shall pay the wife an additional sum of $100,000 as:

(i) reimbursement for the school fees of the two sons incurred in Australia; and

(ii) as his contribution towards the outgoings for five years of the wife’s flat at Block 34 Upper Cross Street #17-154 (“the flat”) and to reimburse her the rent she incurred for having to move out of the flat for five years;

(e) I made no orders for costs.

5 As for the Cross Appeal, I allowed it only to the extent that the wife’s share was increased to 30% and she was awarded an additional $100,000. I made no orders as to costs.

6 Both counsel wrote in for further arguments on behalf of their respective clients. I acceded to the request. After hearing further arguments, I only varied the previous orders I had made on the Appeal as follows:

(a) the wife’s 35% share of the husband’s cash assets shall be based on $2.05m plus interest earned amounting to $511,714 (between 1995 and 1998) and $66,454 (for 1999) submitted by the husband in his tax returns to the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore;

(b) I reduced the sum of $100,000 to $30,000 as reimbursement to the wife to cover only rent at $500 per month for five years;

(c) the sums awarded to the wife were to be paid by 7 December 2002;

(d) for the avoidance of doubt, the wife’s share of 30% in the property was based on the husband’s one-third interest, unless this finding was varied or reversed on appeal, in which case it would be based on the husband’s actual share in the beneficial ownership of the property.

7 Both the husband and the wife are dissatisfied with my orders and have filed notices of appeal in Civil Appeals Nos 126 and 128 of 2004 respectively.

8 Before I set out the facts of the case and the reasons for my decision, I need to refer to the OS proceedings mentioned in [1] above, as the same involved the property and has a bearing on this case.

9 The OS proceedings were commenced by the husband against his younger siblings, viz two sisters (Chia Ee Moey and Chia Cheo Moey) and a brother (Tse Sai Chee). He prayed for declarations that the property as well as another property at 393A Balestier Road were held by his siblings on trust for the estate of their mother Chong Siew Kum (“the mother”). The OS proceedings were converted to a writ by an order of court dated 19 June 2002. It was tried in October 2004 and on 29 November 2004, Andrew Ang JC, inter alia:

(a) declared that the husband, Chia Ee Moey and Tse Sai Chee were beneficial owners of the property in equal shares;

(b) ordered the husband to withdraw the caveat he had filed against the property; and

(c) ordered the property to be sold.

The husband has filed a notice of appeal (in Civil Appeal No 120 of 2004) against the above orders.

10 Another set of proceedings which involved the couple was the Suit mentioned in [1] above. The husband was the plaintiff in the Suit whilst the wife and a friend of the wife Chua Lan (“Chua”) were the first and the second defendants respectively. The husband claimed the return of $1m (“the sum”) from the wife and Chua. At the conclusion of the trial (which was also before the same district judge), the court held that although the sum was handed over to the wife by the husband as he had asserted, the husband had not proved that he owned the sum beneficially. The sum came from the profits of the family’s flag-making business, Hoo Sun Sailmaker (“Hoo Sun”), of which the mother was a partner during her lifetime, together with the husband and the husband’s brother, Chia Weng Tuck.

11 Six separate Registrar’s Appeals were filed in consequence of the decision of the district judge. I heard all six appeals and dismissed them on 4 January 2005. The husband and the wife have also filed notices of appeal against my decision in Civil Appeals Nos 4 and 5 of 2005 respectively.

12 My decision in the Suit had an impact on the orders made in these proceedings. By reason of order (c) in [1] above, it meant that the husband was obliged to pay the wife another $1m as her share of the matrimonial assets. The decision of Andrew Ang JC in the OS proceedings also had an impact on the husband. By reason of order (b) which I made (see [4] above), the husband would have to pay the wife 30% from his one-third share of the sale proceeds when the property is sold.

The facts

13 In the court below, the husband had argued that the property (which was purchased in 1963) formed part of the estate of the mother and he received an interest in it as an inheritance when she passed away on 5 April 1996. He had then contended that the property was not a matrimonial home and did not fall under the definition of a matrimonial asset.

14 The wife, on the other hand, argued that the property was both a matrimonial home and a matrimonial asset. The couple had lived at the property after their marriage on 27 November 1978 until 1996 for a period of 18 years with their sons, who were born on 29 September 1979 and 21 September 1984. The couple lived at the property together with the families of the husband’s twin brothers, Tse Ng Chee and Tse Sai Chee. On 29 March 1996, the couple moved out of the property and moved into the flat.

15 The district judge had observed that both parties had made statements as to the status of the property as a matrimonial home in their affidavits that contradicted the position they took at the hearing, particularly in relation to the sum claimed in the Suit. The court held that the property came within the definition of a “matrimonial asset” under s 112(10) of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed) (“the Act”). The subsection states:

For the purposes of this section, “matrimonial asset” means —

(a) any asset acquired before the marriage by one party or both parties to the marriage —

(i) ordinarily used or enjoyed by both parties or one or more of their children while the parties are residing together for shelter or transportation or for household, education, recreational, social or aesthetic purposes; or

(ii) which has been substantially improved during the marriage by the other party or both parties to the marriage; and

(b) any other asset of any nature acquired during the marriage by one party or both parties to the marriage,

but does not include any asset (not being a matrimonial home) that has been acquired by one party at any time by gift or inheritance and that has not been substantially improved during the marriage by the other party or by both parties to the marriage.

16 I should point out that in denying the wife any claim to the property, the husband relied on the exclusionary provision in the above subsection, contending it was his inheritance from the mother. However, the court below found that the property was purchased for $70,000 using funds from Hoo Sun, and the registered owners were the husband and his twin brothers. In any case, JC Ang’s decision in the OS proceedings effectively demolished the husband’s argument.

17 As for the flat, it was purchased in the...