Lim Keng Hwa v Tan Han Chuah

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Karthigesu JA
• Judgment Date: 30 October 1996
• Neutral Citation: [1996] SGCA 67
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 5 of 1996
• Date: 30 October 1996
• Year: 1996
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tan Hee Liang (Tan Swee Swan & Co)
• Citation: [1996] SGCA 67
• Defendant Counsel: Michael Hwang (Allen & Gledhill) and Benjamin Aloysius Frois (Lee Frois & Co)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: s 106 Women's Charter (Cap 353),Whether a gift fell for division,Matrimonial assets,Family Law,Division,Contributions,Valuation of assets

Cur Adv Vult

This appeal arose from a dispute between the appellant (the wife) and the respondent (the husband) over the division of matrimonial assets between them and maintenance of the wife consequent upon their divorce.

The facts

The parties were married on 24 October 1979. They have two children, both daughters, born on 23 October 1980 and 6 August 1983 respectively. The husband at that time was employed by his father, Tan Hwee Kian, (the father) as a shop assistant in the latter`s business of a Chinese medicinal shop carried on at Block 122, Bedok North Street 2, #01-106 under the name and style of Poh Wah Tng Medical Hall. The premises there consist of two storeys: the ground floor which is the shop where the business is carried on, and the second floor where the husband and wife resided which was and remained their matrimonial home throughout the marriage. The premises were rented from the Housing & Development Board (HDB). In 1989 the wife became ill and over the next three years she suffered from bouts of depression. Differences then arose between them and on 18 December 1993, the wife left the matrimonial home.

On 10 June 1994 the husband filed a petition for divorce, which the wife initially contested, and she filed a cross-petition as well. However, eventually, the wife agreed not to contest the husband`s petition, and a decree nisi was made on 6 July 1995. By consent, the custody of the daughters was awarded to the husband with reasonable access to the wife. The remaining matters, namely, division of matrimonial assets between them and maintenance of the wife were then adjourned for further hearing.

The husband`s means and assets

The Chinese medicinal business of Poh Wah Tng Medical Hall was started by the father in 1957 and was carried on by him as a sole proprietor. In 1975, the husband after completion of his national service joined the father and worked there as an employee drawing a salary of $400 per month. The husband`s mother, Madam Chang Kuay Huang, (the mother) also worked there and assisted in the business. So did the wife after the marriage. It was essentially a family business. In 1985, the husband was made a partner with a 45% share in the business. He then drew about $2,000 per month. According to the income tax return his share of profits from the partnership varied from $10,900 to $16,500 during the period between 1987 and 1994. In 1995, his average monthly income from the business was $3,374.

In September 1985, the father and the husband purchased a semi-detached house known as No 49, Waringi Park for $515,000. Of this amount, $165,000 was provided by the father from his own funds and the balance of $350,000 came from a loan taken from Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Ltd. The property was transferred to the father and the husband as tenants in common in undivided equal shares. The property was then rented out and the entire rent was received by the father, although the husband declared his share of the rental in his income tax return. Presumably, the rent was applied towards payment of the loan and interest owing to the bank.

At that time, the husband`s parents also owned a property known as No 343A, Guillemard Road where they lived. In May 1992, they sold that property for $430,000. Soon after the completion of the sale, the father placed on fixed deposits in the husband`s name with United Overseas Finance Ltd, Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Ltd and Singapore Finance Ltd the sums of $80,000, $80,000 and $90,000 respectively. According to the husband, at about this time there was some indication that HDB would be offering for sale the premises (where the Chinese medicinal business was carried on), and the father`s intention of placing these deposits in the husband`s name was to make the funds available to enable the husband to purchase the premises when offered. However, subsequently no offer was made by HDB.

As the father had placed on fixed deposits the three sums amounting to $250,000 in the name of the husband, the father, in the same year requested the husband to transfer his undivided half share in No 49, Waringi Park to his younger brother, Tan Chiang Huan, who was then an undergraduate student at the National University of Singapore. That transfer was duly effected. Although the transfer of the half share was expressed to be made in consideration of $400,000, no part of this sum was received by the husband. Shortly thereafter, the property itself was sold by the father and the younger brother to the husband`s elder brother, Tan Chiang Hung, in exchange for a sum of $270,000 and a property nearby known as No 19 Waringi Park, which is a terrace house, where the father and mother subsequently lived.

As events had turned out, the HDB did not offer the premises for sale. But the deposits remained in the husband`s name until the end of 1993. The interest earned from the fixed deposits was paid to the father, although the husband declared it in his income tax return. Towards the end of 1993 the husband`s brother, Tan Chiang Hung, who had purchased his office premises at Golden Mile Tower with the help of overdraft facilities of $250,000 from a bank requested a loan of $200,000 from the father with a view to reducing his borrowing. The father agreed to make the loan (repayable with interest) and accordingly the husband at his father`s request withdrew the three fixed deposits on 20 December 1993 and returned the deposits together with interest to the father.

According to the husband, both the undivided half share of No 49, Waringi Park and the deposits totalling $250,000 came from the father and they were in each case dealt with as directed by the father. And at the material date, for the purpose of division of matrimonial assets between him and his wife, he was not possessed of and did not own either of these assets. The husband admitted that he had a couple of savings accounts but the amounts in credit in these accounts were negligible. He had also a savings account and a deposit account jointly with the wife but here again the amounts were not significant. He maintained also jointly with the wife a safe deposit box in the Bedok branch of United Overseas Finance Ltd and the jewellery kept there were gifts from the mother to the wife. The remainder of his assets consisted of a very small holding of Singapore Telecom shares and a credit balance of $29,484.63 in his account with the Central Provident Fund Board (CPF account).

The wife`s means and assets

After the marriage the wife worked in the shop assisting the husband and the father in running the business. She said that initially she was not given any salary or allowance, but from 1991 she was paid $300 per month. However, according to the husband she worked in the shop for only about 31/2 hours daily and was paid $200 per month and an annual bonus of $400. As evidence of such payment he produced statements showing the contributions made to her CPF account in respect of such salary.

After leaving the matrimonial home, the wife first worked at a factory, but as the pay was insufficient to cover her expenses, she soon left the job. She then got a part-time job, receiving $5 per hour for 2 to 3 hours of work per day. She subsequently worked on a full-time basis earning about $700 per month.

Her assets consisted of savings which were held in the joint accounts with the husband, the jewellery in the safe deposit box, and a sum of $10,721 in her CPF account. When she left the matrimonial home she had with her four insurance policies: two endowment policies in her name taken out respectively with The Great Eastern Life Assurance Co Ltd (Great Eastern) and NTUC Co-operative Insurance Commonwealth Enterprise Ltd (NTUC) and two education policies for the children taken out with NTUC. These were taken out by the husband during the marriage and the premiums were mostly paid by the husband. After she left the matrimonial home she did not have enough money to pay for the premiums. She therefore surrendered these policies and received their surrender values as follows:

Policies Surrender Value

(a) Great Eastern endowment $ 9,246.98

(b) ) NTUC endowment $ 4,895.75

(c) ) NTUC education $ 3,528.78

(d) ) NTUC education $ 2,862.07

Total: $ 20,533.58

These sums had since been utilized by her for her maintenance and upkeep, as for a period of about two years she did not receive any maintenance from the husband.

The decision

Before the High Court the wife sought a lump sum maintenance, as she wished to have a Oclean break`, and a share of various assets which she claimed were assets acquired by the husband during the marriage and were available for division under s 106 of the Women`s Charter (Cap 353). The learned judge awarded to the wife a lump sum of $70,000 in full and final settlement of all her claims for maintenance and other assets, and the sum was ordered to be paid as follows:

(i) ) a down payment of $35,000 by 15 February 1996; and

(ii) ) the balance thereof by monthly instalments of $350 each with effect from 30 March 1996.

In addition, the learned judge ordered the husband to return to the wife all her jewellery then kept in the safe deposit box at the Bedok Branch of United Overseas Finance Ltd and to pay to her all the small credit balances in their joint savings and fixed deposit accounts with that branch. The wife has now appealed against the award of the sum of $70,000.

The appeal

The issues before us are, first, what assets were acquired by the husband during the marriage; secondly, what share of those assets or amount thereof should be awarded to the wife, and thirdly, what amount of maintenance should be given to the wife and whether it should be by way of a lump sum as the learned judge has ordered. The main assets put in question by the wife are the following:

(i) ) the property, No 49 Waringi Park;

(ii) ) the moneys in the three fixed deposits;...