Lim Stella v Wong Shaw Seng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Doris Lai-Chia Lee Mui
• Judgment Date: 28 November 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] SGDC 48
• Year: 2000
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Citation: [2000] SGDC 48
• Court: District Court (Singapore)

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

1. The Petitioner (‘wife’) and the Respondent (‘husband’) were married on 7 June 1991. On 15th February 2000, a decree nisi was granted to the wife based on the husband’s unreasonable behaviour. The parties have 2 sons aged 28 and 23 years. The elder son is a teacher, while the younger son is a student at the Singapore Institute of Management.

2. The ancillary issues were adjourned to chambers and on 29 September 2000, I made the following orders:-

(1) The husband shall within 4 months of the order transfer his share, title and interest in the matrimonial property known as #04-44 Mandarin Gardens to the wife. The husband shall make the necessary refund to his CPF account including accrued interest and the wife shall be responsible for the costs incurred in the transfer;

(2) The husband shall pay to the wife the following:-

(a) $800,000 being the wife’s share of the matrimonial assets;

(b) $100,000 being lump sum maintenance for the wife;

(3) The husband shall be entitled to retain the club membership in the Singapore Recreation Club;

(4) Each party to retain the car held in their respective names;

(5) In respect of the $800,000 payable by the husband to the wife in 2(a) above, the said amount shall be payable by monthly instalments of $100,000 with effect from 1 November 2000;

(6) The husband is to pay costs to the wife fixed at $10,000;

(7) Parties be at liberty to apply.

3. The husband being dissatisfied with orders (1), (2)(a), (5) and (6) have now appealed against those orders.

MATRIMONIAL ASSETS

4. The assets held by the parties consist of:-

(1) The matrimonial home at Blk 5, Siglap Road, #04-44, Mandarin Gardens;

(2) The parties’ respective CPF accounts;

(3) Stocks and shares held by the parties;

(4) Savings in their respective bank accounts;

(5) Cars in their respective names; and

(6) Singapore Recreation Club membership.

5. The husband is an Assistant Manager in the Internal Audit Department of Singapore Airlines (SIA) and had an income of $7,652 gross per month. Apart from his full time job with SIA, he was also the General Secretary of his Union and received an honorarium of $880 per month. As a director of Cross Holdings Pte Ltd he was paid director's fees of $700/- per month. The husband also traded heavily in shares of quoted companies and earned substantial income from the shares. The wife had alleged that the husband had started mass selling his shares after the divorce proceedings were initiated.

6. I had therefore suggest and this was accepted by the parties that in view of the husband's heavy trading in shares, for the purpose of determining the amount of shares held by each party, the shares held by them individually as at 31^st August 1998 shall be considered. This was because the Divorce Petition was filed on 6 August 1999. As for the value of the shares, the husband subsequently provided the value of the said shares as at 4 August 2000 and 5 September 2000. The 4^th of August 2000 was the first date the matter was heard while the subsequent date for hearing of this matter where further submissions were tendered was 8 September 2000. As the husband's OCBC bank account was tied up with his shares trading, it was also agreed by the parties that for the purpose of division of the assets, the amount standing in the bank accounts of parties as at 31 August shall be considered.

7. The undisputed assets held by the parties in their names and their respective value are as follows:-

WIFE		HUSBAND
Asset (i) CAR [1996 – Nisson March] (ii) BANK ACCOUNT a) POSB b) MBB c) UOB (iii) SHARES Approximately (iv) CPF (Ordinary and special account)	Value/Amount 40,000 – 50,000 [Average 45,000] 24,445.89 1,199.55 24,221.68 Total 49,867.12 45,687.98 78,972.67	Asset (i) CAR Mercedes Benz (ii) BANK ACCOUNT a) OCBC b) POSB c) MBB d) MBB e) MBB FD (MR 50,000) (iii) SHARES Approximately (iv) CPF Ordinary and special account Investment account (value as at 5/9/2000) (v) SHARES IN PTE LTD COMPANIES a) CROSS HOLDIGNS PTE LTD 30,000 shares b) AVITCO IMPEX PTE LTD 300 shares (vi) CLUB MEMBERSHIP Singapore Recreation Club	Value/Amount 140,000 to 160,000 [Average 150,000] 84,987.71 9,416.60 2,378.69 178.06 21,000.00 Total 117,961.06 2,771,387.40 105,624.18 228,400 $334,024.18 ? ? 16,000
Total value of items (i) – (iv) above = $219,527.77		Total value of items (i) – (iv) above = $3,373,372.50

8. In addition to the above assets, the parties also had a fully paid up matrimonial flat at Mandarin Gardens, #04-44 held in joint names. The husband had utilised a sum of $245,679.14 from his CPF account towards payment of this flat. The flat was valued at $700,000.

9. The wife had alleged that the husband had failed to make full and frank disclosure. In support of this claim she pointed out that although his total income was more than $14,000 per month based on his income tax assessment, he had in his initial affidavit stated that he earned a gross salary of $7,652 per month. She had also contended in her affidavit that the husband did not reveal all his bank accounts and the insurance policies held by him. She therefore urged the court to draw an adverse inference against the husband.

10. The wife had contended in her affidavit filed on 20 May 2000 that although a Notice to Produce was served on the husband’s solicitors on 9 November 1999, the husband had failed and/or neglected to give discovery and produce all the relevant documents requested. She then estimated that he would have stashed away at least $2 million in cash in bank accounts and fixed deposits. The wife also stated that the total worth of the matrimonial assets would be about $8 million.

11. The wife asked for the matrimonial flat to be transferred to her absolutely so that she could live there with her two sons who are still single. She also asked for half the value of the remaining matrimonial assets held by the husband including his CPF account and also lump maintenance for herself and the younger son.

12. The husband on the other hand denied the allegation of non-disclosure and counter alleged that he believed the wife had some fixed deposits which she had not declared.

13. The husband contended that he had been paying all household expenses and as the assets, in particular, the shares in his name were acquired by his sole effort, he should therefore be entitled to the bulk of it. He was prepared to give 10% of his portfolio of shares to his wife by way of transfer or payment of the value.

14. In respect of the wife's claim for maintenance for herself and the son, he indicated that as the son was already an adult and had refused to communicate with him, he was not prepared to offer maintenance for the son. As for his wife, he contended through his counsel that he was offering $1,000 per month and was prepared to pay lump sum maintenance.

Conclusion

15. The husband had not contested the wife's amended divorce petition based on the ground of his unreasonable behaviour. I quote below some of the undisputed particulars:-

(1) "In the early years of the...