Lock Yeng Fun (mw) v Chua Hock Chye

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lee Seiu Kin J
• Judgment Date: 14 December 2006
• Neutral Citation: [2006] SGHC 230
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 20 December 2006
• Year: 2006
• Plaintiff Counsel: Helen Chia (Clifford Law Corporation)
• Defendant Counsel: The Respondent in person
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Maintenance,Assessment,Ex-husband elderly and ailing with low income and low prospects of higher earnings,Parties agreed on lump sum maintenance in lieu of monthly payments,Whether a lump sum payment was equitable in the circumstances,Section 114(1) Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed),Matrimonial assets,Division,Wife's financial contributions minimal but marriage was long,Whether length of marriage and non-financial contributions were relevant considerations,Section 112(2) Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed)
• Citation: [2006] SGHC 230

14 December 2006

Lee Seiu Kin J:

1 On 25 September 2006 I made, inter alia, the following ancillary orders in relation to Divorce Petition 2059 of 2005:

(a) The matrimonial property is to be sold in the open market within 12 months. The net proceeds of sale, but before CPF deductions, is to be divided in the ratio of 60% to the respondent and 40% to the petitioner. The respondent is to refund his own CPF from his share of the proceeds of sale.

(b) For the other assets, the division of such assets shall also be in the ratio of 60% to the respondent and 40% to the petitioner. The net difference is to be deducted from the division of the sale of the matrimonial home from the petitioner’s share of the proceeds of sale.

(c) The respondent is to pay the petitioner a lump sum maintenance of $60,000. This amount may be paid from the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home.

The petitioner appealed against these orders on 23 October 2006 and I now give my grounds of decision.

2 The parties registered their marriage at the Registry of Marriages, Singapore on 4 September 1975. The petition for divorce was filed on 12 May 2005 and the decree nisi was granted on 9 December 2005. The ground for divorce was that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. Although the marriage was in its thirtieth year, according to the petitioner, the parties had ceased to have a happy union since 1998 and they slept in separate bedrooms and had stopped sexual relations from 2002. According to the respondent, it was even earlier: the union was not a happy one from mid-1980. In their affidavits, both parties hurled accusations of abuse and unreasonable behaviour against each other. As these are not a consideration in the matters that I have to decide, I need not discuss them further here.

3 The matters for my consideration concerned the division of matrimonial assets and the petitioner’s application for maintenance to be paid by the respondent.

Background

4 At the time of their marriage the respondent was an Administrative Executive aged 25 years and the petitioner a clerk aged 24 years. There are 2 children to the marriage, a daughter born in 1978 and a son born a year later. Both of them are now working adults and independent of their parents although they live with them. They do not provide any financial support to the respondent but they give the petitioner about $400 per month in total.

5 After marriage, the petitioner continued to work as a payroll clerk until the birth of their first child. The petitioner then stopped work to tend to the home and to the new addition to the family, and later on, to the second child (although she took a temporary job for four months in 1992 when the respondent was retrenched and unemployed for a while). The respondent thus became the sole breadwinner. The family never employed any maids except for the two years that they lived in Thailand.

6 Although the respondent did not attend university, he rose to become a vice-president in three foreign banks. He was based in Singapore until 1981. Between 1981 and 1983, he worked in Thailand and relocated his young family there. In 1983, the respondent relocated to Malaysia and his family was there with him for a year. The petitioner moved back to Singapore with the children in 1984 but the respondent remained in Malaysia until 1985. In that year he joined the Chase Manhattan Bank in Singapore where he worked until he was retrenched in 1992. His annual income during the period he was with Chase Manhattan Bank was about $110,000.

7 The respondent then went to Indonesia to work in a bank called Unibank, but the petitioner and children remained in Singapore. In 1994 he moved to Standard Chartered Bank and was also based in Indonesia. His annual income was about $230,000. He was retrenched in 1998 and returned to Singapore to join the Chubb Insurance Group at an annual income of about $150,000. He remained there until his retrenchment in 2000. During the period he was overseas and without his family, he returned home frequently, but otherwise the petitioner looked after the children and the home on her own.

8 After he was retrenched in 2000, the respondent started a training and consultancy business, but this did not succeed and he incurred losses amounting to about $25,000. In 2002 he started another training and consultancy business called Max Impact with a partner. However this also incurred losses and was wound up in 2005. The respondent had made various investments but during the stock market downturn in 1981, he lost approximately $300,000.

Matrimonial Assets

9 The matrimonial assets to be divided comprise, in the main, the matrimonial home which the parties estimate to be worth $1.7m. The other matrimonial assets comprised CPF accounts, insurance policies and other investments.

10 The petitioner had asked for a 70:30 split of the matrimonial home in her favour. The respondent also asked for a similar split, but in his favour.

11 As for the remaining matrimonial assets, the petitioner asked for them to be divided equally. The respondent’s position is that they should also be divided in the ratio of 70:30 in his favour.

Matrimonial home

12 The parties’ first matrimonial home was an HDB flat in Telok Blangah purchased in 1976. The respondent’s position was that this was fully paid by way of a cash payment of $4,000 and a withdrawal of $20,000 from his CPF account. The petitioner’s position was that she had made a small financial contribution towards its purchase, though she did not specify the sum involved. They sold the flat in 1989 for $52,000 and from the proceeds, a sum of about $31,000 was returned to the respondent’s CPF account. The balance was divided between them.

13 The parties purchased the present matrimonial home at 16 Namly Garden in 1988 for the sum of $535,000. The respondent obtained a staff loan of $400,000 and paid the remaining $135,000 in cash. The respondent stated that he contributed another $30,000 towards the purchase of furniture, fixtures and fittings and electrical appliances for the new home. The petitioner also stated that she had contributed $30,000 towards the same items. She produced evidence of a payment by way of cheque in the name of the respondent from her POSB account for the sum of $30,000. However the respondent’s position was that this went towards repayment of a loan for the purchase of some shares. In my view, it does not matter too much either way – this was her contribution towards the assets of both parties. The petitioner stated in her affidavit of assets and means that she had made contributions of $80,000 towards renovations. This was denied by the respondent who stated that this was not supported by any documents. The petitioner replied that part of this was supported by the said cheque for $30,000. In relation to the balance of $50,000, she provided details in an expense list in her second affidavit.

14 The housing loan was repaid by way of deductions from the respondent’s CPF account for the principal sum of about $335,000. The respondent paid off the remaining outstanding sum of $65,000 in cash in 1992. Along with the bank interest of $227,000, the total amount of the respondent’s contribution amounted to $762,000. The parties estimate the present value of the property to be about $1.7 million.

Other assets

15 The respondent declared the total value of his other assets to be about $230,000. This comprised his CPF funds totalling about $90,000, as well as cash in bank and investments in various unit trusts totalling about $140,000. The petitioner disputed the respondent’s declaration and...