Lock Yeng Fun v Chua Hock Chye

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 26 June 2007
• Date: 26 June 2007
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 116 of 2006
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Lock Yeng Fun

Plaintiff

and

Chua Hock Chye

Defendant

[2007] SGCA 33

Chan Sek Keong CJ

,

Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA

and

V K Rajah JA

Civil Appeal No 116 of 2006

Court of Appeal

Family Law–Matrimonial assets–Division–Principles governing division of matrimonial assets–Significance of (direct) financial contributions–Whether equal division warranted on facts

This is an appeal by the petitioner wife against the ancillary orders made by the trial judge (“the Judge”) with respect to both the division of matrimonial assets as well as maintenance. The parties were married for almost 30 years and have two adult children. The appellant had been a homemaker from the start of the marriage and only took on temporary employment for a few months when the respondent was retrenched. The husband, on the other hand, enjoyed a successful career as a vice-president of three foreign banks, until 2000 when he was retrenched. His employment required him to be based overseas for a substantial period of time and, during this period, the appellant single-handedly cared for the household and the children. Apart from caring for the respondent, the home and the children of the marriage, the appellant also managed to amass a sizeable sum of approximately $500,000 from her investments (albeit from moneys given to her by the respondent for household and miscellaneous expenses). On the other hand, based on disclosed investments in the husband's names, he only managed to accumulate $230,000. The matrimonial assets to be divided compromised the sale proceeds of the matrimonial home at 16 Namly Garden, the wife's assets (including but not limited to investments and the surrender value of insurance policies) and the husband's assets.

The respondent currently earned a monthly income of approximately $600 to $800 from a consultancy business he ran from home. The appellant, on the other hand, was unemployed but received a total of approximately $400 from the children every month.

The Judge held, inter alia, that the net proceeds of sale of matrimonial property (but before Central Provident Fund deductions) were to be divided in the ratio of 60% to the husband and 40% to the wife, and that the husband was to pay the wife maintenance of $60,000 in a lump sum.

On appeal, the wife contended that each party should retain his or her own assets or, alternatively, that the pool of assets should be divided equally between them. The respondent husband did not file any notice of appeal against the Judge's decision.

Held, allowing the appeal in part:

(1) An appellate court should not interfere with a trial judge's exercise of discretion except in only very exceptional circumstances. In the final analysis, there were exceptional circumstances in the present appeal, justifying an order that the matrimonial assets be divided in equal shares: at [36] and [37].

(2) In addition to the non-financial contributions of a spouse (more often than not, the wife) attention must be given to his or her direct financial contributions through his or her efforts in increasing the total value of the matrimonial assets. This contribution must be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the proportion of matrimonial assets to be awarded to that spouse. This was not only logical but also eminently fair. This was, in fact, the situation in the present case, where the wife not only looked after the home and children for 30 years, but also, by her own efforts and investment skills, increased the value of the family assets considerably to an amount larger than that brought in by the husband. In the circumstances she must be given due credit for this direct financial contribution in the division of matrimonial assets. It was principally for this reason that a fair and equitable distribution of the matrimonial assets, in the present case, would be on the basis of an equal distribution: at [41].

(3) Having regard to all the relevant circumstances, and in particular the equal distribution of matrimonial assets, the proper order to make in respect of maintenance was one that there should be no order as to maintenance at all: at [48].

[Observation: The experience of the courts in dealing with the division of matrimonial assets showed that equality of division was not the norm; indeed in the large majority of cases decided by the courts, equality of division was not achievable on the facts. This was not surprising given the current social conditions in Singapore, notwithstanding the fact that more and more women work and there was generally more equality in the work place. However, the focus of the court was on the attainment of a just and equitable division of matrimonial assets (as required under s 112 (1) of the Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed) (“the Act”). Consistent with this aim, there was a need to give the fullest effect to the non-financial contributions of the spouse concerned: at [55].

Until Parliament changed its mind with regard to s 112 of the Act and amended it accordingly, there was a need to discourage the perpetuation of the proposition to the effect that equality of division was either the starting point or the norm in any given case, as this could induce in the judge concerned a state of mind that sought to achieve equality as the norm as an end point, regardless of the actual facts and merits concerned. This would be wrong in law as it was contrary to legislative intent. Finally, whilst equality of division of matrimonial assets in the courts was not the norm, the courts would nevertheless not hesitate to award half (or even more than half) of the matrimonial assets if such a decision was justified on the facts: at [57] and [58].]

Chen Siew Hwee v Low Kee Guan [2006] 4 SLR (R) 605; [2006] 4 SLR 605 (folld)

Chua Kwee Chen v Koh Choon Chin [2006] 3 SLR (R) 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 AC 618 (refd)

NI v NJ [2007] 1 SLR (R) 75; [2007] 1 SLR 75 (folld)

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

Soh Chan Soon v Tan Choon Yock [1998] SGHC 204 (refd)

White v White [2001] 1 AC 596 (refd)

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

Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed) ss 112, 112 (1), 112 (2), 113, 114 (1), 114 (2)

Lim See Wai Victor (Hoh Law Corporation) for the appellant

The respondent in person.

Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA

(delivering the grounds of decision of the court):

1 This is an appeal by the petitioner wife against the ancillary orders made by the trial judge (“the Judge”) in Lock Yeng Fun v Chua Hock Chye [2006] SGHC 230 (“GD”) with respect to both the division of matrimonial assets as well as maintenance. On appeal, the appellant focused her challenge on the decision of the Judge with respect to the former issue (where the matrimonial assets were divided in the proportion of 60% to the husband and 40% to the wife).

2 The respondent husband did not file any notice of appeal against the Judge's decision.

3 We allowed the appeal in part (in so far as the issue relating to the division of matrimonial assets was concerned). In particular, we ordered an equal division of all the matrimonial assets available for distribution. However, in so far as the issue of maintenance was concerned, we found it appropriate, in the circumstances, to rescind the order made by the Judge. We now give the detailed grounds for our decision.

Background

4 The facts are not in dispute and can be simply stated.

5 The parties were married for almost 30 years. Their marriage was registered on 4 September 1975, the divorce petition was filed on 12 May 2005, and the decree nisi was granted subsequently, followed by the decree absolute.

6 The appellant is currently 55 years old and the respondent is 56 years old.

7 There are two children of the marriage, a daughter (aged 29) and a son (aged 28). They are both working adults and are not dependent on their parents. They do not provide any form of financial support to the respondent, but give the appellant about $400 a month in total.

8 The appellant has been a homemaker from the start of the marriage and only ventured to work (and even at that, merely a temporary job) for four months when the respondent was retrenched in 1992.

9 The respondent, on the other hand, enjoyed a successful career as a vice-president of three foreign banks. His employment required him to be based overseas for a substantial period of time, and during this period, the appellant single-handedly cared for the household and children.

10 After the respondent was retrenched in 2000 from his position at an insurance group, he started a training and consultancy business, which, unfortunately, did not succeed and incurred losses amounting to some $25,000.

11 In 2002, the respondent, together with a partner, started another training and consultancy business, which, as with the previous start-up, suffered severe losses and was eventually wound up in 2005.

12 The respondent currently operates a training and consultancy business from home, from which he claimed to be earning a monthly income of approximately $600 to $800.

13 The respondent also claimed (which was accepted by the Judge and was not challenged by the appellant, on appeal) that he had made various investments in the stock market and had made a loss of approximately $300,000 on these investments.

The circumstances surrounding the divorce

14 The ground for divorce was that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The acrimony and bitterness between the parties were clearly evident from the (hurtful) allegations and accusations they hurled against each other. However, whilst this...