Liew Chui Fong (mw) v Yew Kok Chin

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tan Lee Meng J
• Judgment Date: 27 December 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] SGHC 225
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 28 December 2007
• Year: 2007
• Plaintiff Counsel: Fong Weng Khai (W K Fong & Co)
• Defendant Counsel: Lisa Sam (Lisa Sam & Co)
• Citation: [2007] SGHC 225

27 December 2007

Tan Lee Meng J:

1 This judgment concerns the division of the matrimonial assets of the petitioner, Mdm Liew Chui Fong (“Mdm Liew”), and the respondent, Mr Yew Kok Chin, as well as the maintenance payable by Mr Yew to Mdm Liew. I ordered that the matrimonial assets be divided on the basis of 60% for Mr Yew and 40% for Mdm Liew. I also ordered that Mr Yew pay a monthly maintenance of $700 to Mdm Liew.

2 Mdm Liew and Mr Yew, who were married on 29 March 1977, were divorced in 2005. They have two children, one aged 29 and the other aged 19.

3 As is often the case with disputes over division of matrimonial assets, lengthy affidavits were filed by both parties and innumerable accusations were hurled by them against each other.

4 The properties acquired by the parties during their marriage included the following:

(i) their matrimonial home at Hilltops at Cairnhill, which was sold in an en bloc sale for $2.8m, the bulk of which has been distributed to both parties;

(ii) an apartment in Newton View, which has been fully paid for;

(iii) a shop unit in China;

(iv) an office unit in China; and

(v) a half-share of a property in Brisbane, Australia, which was sold in 2005. The sale proceeds are listed in Mr Yew’s list of assets for the purpose of distribution of matrimonial assets.

5 When dealing with the division of matrimonial property, reference must first be made to s 112(1) of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed), which provides as follows:

The court shall have power, when granting or subsequent to the grant of a judgment of divorce … to order the division between the parties of any matrimonial asset or the sale of any such asset and the division between the parties of the proceeds of the sale of any such asset in such proportions as the court thinks just and equitable.

6 Reference must also be made to s 112(2) of the Women’s Charter, which provides as follows:

It shall be the duty of the court in deciding whether to exercise its powers under subsection (1) and, if so, in what manner, to have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the following matters:

(a) the extent of the contributions made by each party in money, property or work towards acquiring, improving or maintaining the matrimonial assets; …

(d) the extent of the contributions made by each party to the welfare of the family, including looking after the home, or caring for the family or any aged or infirm relative or dependent of either party; …

(g) the giving of assistance or support by one party to the other party (whether or not of a material kind), including the giving of assistance or support which aids the other party in the carrying on of his or her occupation or business .

7 The effect of s 112 of the Women’s Charter has been considered in innumerable cases. In Lim Choon Lai v Chew Kim Heng [2001] 3 SLR 225 (“Lim Choon Lai”), the Court of Appeal pointed out that the process of dividing matrimonial assets is not an exact science and each judge will have his own view as to what would be a just and equitable division of the parties’ matrimonial assets in any given case. L P Thean JA, who delivered the judgment of the court, stated at [14] as follows:

In determining a “just and equitable” division of matrimonial assets under s 112(1) of the Women’s Charter, the court must, as directed by s 112(2), have regard to all the relevant circumstances of the case at hand, and in particular the matters enumerated in that subsection, in so far as they are applicable, and on that basis determine what a “just and equitable” division should be. The matters enumerated there comprise both financial and non-financial contributions made by the parties. Where financial contributions are concerned, the court must, of course, take into account the sums contributed by each party; these are the matters specifically mentioned in paras (a) and (b) of s 112(2). However, this does not mean that the court...