Lim Choon Lai v Chew Kim Heng

JurisdictionSingapore
Judgment Date22 June 2001
Date22 June 2001
Docket NumberCivil Appeal No 141 of 2000
CourtCourt of Appeal (Singapore)
Lim Choon Lai
Plaintiff
and
Chew Kim Heng
Defendant

[2001] SGCA 48

Yong Pung How CJ

,

L P Thean JA

and

Lai Kew Chai J

Civil Appeal No 141 of 2000

Court of Appeal

Family Law–Matrimonial assets–Division–Matrimonial home–Just and equitable division–Financial and non-financial contributions by each party–Wife making comparatively-larger contributions to family and marriage

The parties were married for about 30 years and had two children from the marriage, both above 21 years old. During the marriage, the husband was employed as a clerk while the wife was a schoolteacher. He had since retired while she continued to be so employed. The main dispute in the present proceedings related to how the matrimonial home should be divided. The matrimonial home was purchased about 22 years ago. Almost 40% of the purchase price was financed by a government loan while the remaining amount was paid for directly by the parties. The district judge was of the view that the proceeds from the sale should be divided equally between the parties. The wife was dissatisfied and felt she deserved a larger share as she had made more contributions to the family during the marriage. She appealed and the appeal was dismissed by the judicial commissioner. The wife then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Held, allowing the appeal and ordering a 60% share to the wife and 40% share to the husband:

(1) In making a “just and equitable” division of matrimonial assets, the court was required under s 112 (2) of the Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed) to have regard to all the relevant circumstances of the case, in particular the matters specified in that subsection, in so far as they were applicable. However, this did not mean that the court should engage in a meticulous investigation and take an account of every minute sum each party had paid or incurred in the acquisition of the matrimonial assets and/or discharge of any obligation for the benefit of any member of the family, and then make exact calculations of each party's contributions. The court had to necessarily take a broader view than that. As for the non-financial contributions, they also played an important role, and depending on the circumstances of the case, could be just as important as the financial contributions. After considering both the financial and non-financial contributions of each party, the court would adopt a broad-brush approach to determine what was a “just and equitable” division. It was not the proper approach to use as the starting point the assumption that both husband and wife had contributed jointly and equally throughout the marriage to the acquisition and growth of the equity in the family home, whether the marriage was a long or short one: at [14] and [15].

(2) The evidence showed that throughout the 30-year marriage, it was the wife who bore the main burden of supporting the family and providing for its welfare. Although due recognition should also be given to husband for his lesser contributions, the district judge had been too generous towards him and had given too much credit to his financial contributions. The wife's job was also more likely to allow her to spend more time with the family and children: at [26] and [27].

(3) After considering all the various factors and weighing the monetary and non-monetary contributions made by each party, the wife deserved greater credit for the comparatively-larger contributions she had made to the family and marriage. Consequently, a just and equitable division would be for her to receive a 60% share in the sale proceeds of the matrimonial home and the husband to have a 40% share: at [28].

Lau Loon Seng v Sia Peck Eng [1999] 2 SLR (R) 688; [1999] 4 SLR 408 (refd)

Louis Pius Gilbert v Louis Anne Lise [1999] 3 SLR (R) 402; [2000] 1 SLR 274 (not folld)

Ryan Neil John v Berger Rosaline [2000] 3 SLR (R) 647; [2001] 1 SLR 419 (refd)

Soh Chan Soon v Tan Choon Yock [1998] SGHC 204 (not folld)

Yow Mee Lan v Chen Kai Buan [2000] 2 SLR (R) 659; [2000] 4 SLR 466 (folld)

Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1985 Rev Ed) s 106

Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed) ss 112 (1), 112 (2)

Tan Kok Heng Leroy Solomon (Lee & Lee) for the appellant

Raymond Lye and Alvin Chang (Tay Lye & Ngaw Partnership) for the respondent.

L P Thean JA

(delivering the grounds of judgment of the court):

1 This was an appeal from the decision of the High Court dismissing an appeal from the District Court on the issue of division of matrimonial assets following the dissolution of the marriage between the appellant and the respondent. We allowed the appeal and now give our reasons.

Background facts

2 The appellant, Mdm Lim Choon Lai (“Mdm Lim”) and the respondent, Mr Chew Kim Heng (“Mr Chew”) had had a long marriage of about 30 years. Unfortunately, their marriage was dissolved on 20 April 1999 on Mdm Lim's petition and Mr Chew's cross-petition on the ground that the marriage had irretrievably broken down.

3 The parties had had a long relationship even before their marriage. They first started living together as from December 1962, when Mdm Lim was still a student. She went on to pursue her university education and graduated in 1968. They eventually got married in 1970. At the time of their marriage, both were employed in the government service, Mr Chew as a clerk and Mdm Lim as a schoolteacher. He had been working as a clerk since 1958 and retired on 1 May 1998. She, on the other hand, started work in 1968 and continues to be so employed today. The parties have a daughter and a son from the marriage, and both of them are over 21 years old.

4 With regard to the parties' housing arrangements during the 38 years that they were together, they first stayed at Mr Chew's family home for the period from 1963 to 1970. In 1972, they rented a place at 9A Clover Avenue. Soon thereafter and in the same year, they rented a flat at Block 60, Commonwealth Drive from the Housing and Development Board (“HDB”). They stayed there until they bought their own flat in 1974. The new flat was at Block 8, Holland Avenue (“the Holland Avenue flat”), and it was purchased in their joint names from the HDB in early 1974 for $15,500. The downpayment and monthly instalments were paid for out of Mdm Lim's Central Provident Fund (“CPF”), while Mr Chew paid for the furnishings and renovations and was responsible for the other household expenses. The Holland Avenue flat was later sold in November 1979 for $30,273, and they purchased the present matrimonial property, 83 Namly Avenue, Singapore (“83 Namly Avenue”), which is a two-storey semi-detached house. The total purchase price of the house, including renovations and other expenses, amounted to $229,000. A government loan of $90,000 was taken to finance the purchase of the house, while the remaining sum of $139,000 was paid for directly by the parties.

Proceedings below

5 With respect to the ancillary matters in the divorce proceedings before the District Court, the only contentious issue was the division of the matrimonial property, 83 Namly Avenue. The district judge made the following orders on 19 July 2000:

(a) that the matrimonial property known as 83 Namly Avenue, Singapore, be sold in the open market within six months from the date of this order and the proceeds of sale, less the expenses connected with the sale, be divided equally between the parties;

(b) that the wife be given the first option, to be exercised within one month, to purchase the husband's share;

(c) no order as to maintenance; and

(d) no order as to costs.

6 Mdm Lim appealed only against the order relating to the division of the matrimonial property. The High Court dismissed her appeal and she appealed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
173 cases
  • NK v NL
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 19 Julio 2007
    ...and over a long period of time. 26 Prakash J’s approach was unequivocally endorsed by this court in Lim Choon Lai v Chew Kim Heng [2001] 3 SLR 225, where L P Thean JA, who delivered the judgment of the court, stated as follows (at In our respectful view, the approach adopted by Judith Praka......
  • Lock Yeng Fun v Chua Hock Chye
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 26 Junio 2007
    ...469; [2006] 3 SLR 469 (refd) Lau Loon Seng v Sia Peck Eng [1999] 2 SLR (R) 688; [1999] 4 SLR 408 (folld) Lim Choon Lai v Chew Kim Heng [2001] 2 SLR (R) 260; [2001] 3 SLR 225 (folld) Louis Pius Gilbert v Louis Anne Lise [1999] 3 SLR (R) 402; [2000] 1 SLR 274 (refd) Miller v Miller [2006] 2 A......
  • Rosaline Singh v Jayabalan Samidurai (alias Jerome Jayabalan)
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 29 Diciembre 2003
    ...or business; and (h) …. 8. 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, the Court of Appeal reiterated that the division of matrimonial assets is not an exact science and each judge would have his own view as to wh......
  • Kwok Wai Leng v Chan Sooi Hong
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 22 Marzo 2004
    ...the family. 12 That the division of matrimonial assets is not an exact science cannot be overstated. In Lim Choon Lai v Chew Kim Heng [2001] 3 SLR 225 at [14], L P Thean JA, who delivered the judgment of the Court of Appeal, summed up the position when he said as In determining a “just and ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Family Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2007, December 2007
    • 1 Diciembre 2007
    ...and thereafter worked to reach an equitable division. This issue was laid to rest by the Court of Appeal in Lim Choon Lai v Chew Kim Heng[2001] 3 SLR 225, which approved of Yow”s approach. Another strand was the concept of equality as a norm: see Leong, ‘The Laws in Singapore and England Af......
  • Family Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2005, December 2005
    • 1 Diciembre 2005
    ...favouring financial contribution. Section 112 of the Women”s Charter no longer draws this distinction. In Lim Choon Lai v Chew Kim Heng[2001] 3 SLR 225 (‘Lim Choon Lai’), the Court of Appeal stated that non-financial contribution could be ‘just as important’ as financial contribution (at [1......

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