Lim Cheok Kwang v Chew Fong Heng Shirley

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeLai Siu Chiu J
Judgment Date30 July 2010
Neutral Citation[2010] SGHC 214
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Docket NumberDivorce Petition No 925 of 2006 (Registrar’s Appeal from the Subordinate Courts No 17 of 2010)
Published date18 July 2014
Year2010
Hearing Date26 May 2010
Plaintiff CounselDaljit Kaur d/o Harbans Singh (N S Kang)
Defendant CounselRespondent in person.
Subject MatterFamily Law
Citation[2010] SGHC 214
Lai Siu Chiu J: Introduction

This was a Registrar’s Appeal (“the appeal”) that arose out of the ancillary orders made in divorce proceedings between the parties. The appellant Lim Cheok Kwang (“the husband”) was appealing against the decision of the district judge who had ordered, inter alia, that 40% of the net sale proceeds of the matrimonial flat, after refund of the husband’s CPF, be given to the respondent Shirley Chew (“the wife”), and that the husband pay a lump sum maintenance of $42,000 to the wife.

After hearing the parties’ submissions, I allowed the appeal and made the following orders: After payment of the outstanding mortgage loan, refund of the husband’s CPF contributions used in the purchase of the flat plus accrued interest and payment of all costs and expenses relating to the same, the wife was to have 15% of the net sale proceeds of the matrimonial flat. In the alternative, if the husband opted to retain the flat, he was to pay the wife 15% of the net value, based on the sum of $210,000.00. In lieu of monthly maintenance of $500.00 per month, which shall cease by August 2010, the husband was to give a lump sum maintenance of $5,000 to the wife; and There be no orders for costs of the appeal.

As the wife has filed Notice of Appeal (in Civil Appeal No 93 of 2010) against the orders I made, I shall now set out the reasons for my decision.

Background

The husband is 53 years old and the wife is 52 years old. The parties were married on 22 March 1997 at the Singapore Registry of Marriages when they were about 40 and 39 years old respectively. There are no children from the marriage.

Divorce proceedings were commenced by the husband on 7 March 2006 on the ground that the marriage had broken down irretrievably due to the wife’s unreasonable behaviour. Initially the proceedings were contested. Subsequently, the parties agreed to amend the ground of divorce to state that the marriage had broken down irretrievably in that the parties had lived separately for four years. The decree nisi was granted on 23 October 2007.

The husband is a construction safety officer and is drawing a monthly salary of $2,000. The wife is currently unemployed. Prior to the marriage, the wife was working as a property agent and had an income of about $50,000 a year. The wife claimed that she had stopped work to look after the household. The husband disputed that contending that she continued to work periodically.

The Parties’ Assets

The husband has the following assets: A 4-room Housing Development Board (“HDB”) executive apartment located at Choa Chu Kang Avenue 4 valued at $450,000 (“the Choa Chu Kang flat”); Five insurance policies with a total surrender value of $81,563.26 (as at October 2009); Shares in five different companies with a total estimated value of about $49,055 (as at October 2009); Personal bank account balance of $1,002.41 and one fixed deposit bank account balance of $1,205.79 held jointly with his deceased mother (as at October 2009); and CPF monies (as at October 2009); Ordinary account: $75,096.68; and Special account: $28,924.07.

As for the wife, the following were/are her assets: An insurance policy with surrender value of approximately $2,000 (as at October 2009); Personal bank account balance of about $500 (as at October 2009); and CPF monies (as at 26 October 2009); Ordinary account: $126,172.28; and Special account: $23,229.26.

The husband has no known creditors. As for the wife, she owes $21,000 to Great Eastern Life Insurance. It was noted that the wife used to own a HDB flat at Rivervale Street (near Sengkang) with her mother (“Rivervale”). She bought Rivervale in 1996, one year before the marriage. She sold the flat on 27 May 2003.

Ascertaining the Matrimonial Assets

Section 112 of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the Women’s Charter”) gives the court the power to order the division between the parties of any matrimonial asset. Unless the property is a matrimonial asset, it is not subject to the court’s power of division. Section 112(10) of the Women’s Charter defines “matrimonial asset” as follows:

(10) In 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 by 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.

The Choa Chu Kang flat was purchased by the husband in March 1992, five years before the marriage, in his and his late mother’s name. However, the wife moved into the flat immediately after the parties were married and has lived there since. The wife was listed as an occupier of the matrimonial flat on 23 June 2003. The flat was the matrimonial home and constituted a “matrimonial asset” pursuant to s 112(10)(a)(i) of the Women’s Charter.

Most of the shares owned by the husband were acquired in 1998, viz, during the subsistence of the marriage. They are therefore subject to division pursuant to s 112(10)(b) of the Women’s Charter. Similarly, two of the husband’s insurance policies (with the total surrender value of about $19,000 as at October 2009) were acquired during the subsistence of the marriage and were also subject to division. As the husband was working throughout the duration of the marriage, naturally a portion of the CPF account monies would also have been acquired during the marriage and be the subject of division. All in all, the value of the husband’s shares, the two insurance policies and his CPF account monies amounted to about $172,000. Taking a broad-brush approach, I factored in the value of the shares, insurance policies and CPF monies when I determined the apportionment of the matrimonial flat.

Division of the Matrimonial Flat

Under s 112(2) of the Women’s Charter, in deciding the manner of division of matrimonial assets, the court is to have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including, inter alia: the extent of the contributions made by each party in money, property or work towards acquiring, improving or maintaining the matrimonial assets; 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 dependant of either party; and the giving of assistance or support which aids the other party in the carrying on of his or her occupation or business.

The matrimonial flat was purchased by the husband and is currently in the husband’s sole name. The husband was also the sole financial contributor to the outgoings of the matrimonial flat; he was the one who paid for utilities, the conservancy charges and the property tax. It was clear that the wife had not made any direct contribution...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Zhou Lijie v Wang Chengxiang
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 14 Diciembre 2015
    ...equitable division of the matrimonial assets. In contrast, the defendant relied on the case of Lim Cheok Kwang v Chew Fong Heng Shirley [2010] SGHC 214 (“Lim Cheok Kwang”) to contend that the plaintiff was only entitled to a 15% share of the matrimonial assets. In that case, the parties wer......
  • Acy v Acz
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 1 Abril 2014
    ...Siew Lin v Oh Choon [2013] SGHC 25 (refd) Lee Yu Hou v Nam Lian Hiang [2011] SGDC 394 (refd) Lim Cheok Kwang v Chew Fong Heng Shirley [2010] SGHC 214 (refd) Oh Choon v Lee Siew Lin [2014] 1 SLR 629 (refd) Ong Boon Huat Samuel v Chan Mei Lan Kristine [2007] 2 SLR (R) 729; [2007] 2 SLR 729 (f......
  • TFU v TFV
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 9 Septiembre 2014
    ...marriage. Andrew Phang J (as he then was) awarded the wife 35% of the matrimonial assets. In Lim Cheok Kwang v Chew Fong Heng Shirley [2010] SGHC 214, the parties were officially married for 13 years but they separated 3 years before their divorce. The effective duration of the marriage was......
  • TDZ v TEA
    • Singapore
    • Family Court (Singapore)
    • 26 Junio 2015
    ...affair and was disinterested in married life. The defendant relied on the cases of Lim Cheok Kwang v Chew Fong Heng Shirley [2010] SGHC 214, Leong Mei Chuan v David Chan Teck Hock [2001] SGHC 80 and Leong Kwek Keong v Lee Ying Kuan [1990] 1 SLR(R) 112 to support his position that the period......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Family Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2010, December 2010
    • 1 Diciembre 2010
    ...contributions to the overall assets and welfare of the family. [emphasis added] 15.44 In Lim Cheok Kwang v Chew Fong Heng Shirley [2010] SGHC 214 (‘Lim Cheok Kwang’), the parties, who had no children, were married for 13 years before they divorced. The High Court noted that the marital rela......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT