Louis Pius Gilbert v Louis Anne Lise

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Goh Joon Seng J
• Judgment Date: 15 September 1999
• Neutral Citation: [1999] SGHC 243
• Docket Number: Divorce Petition No 388 of 1998
• Date: 15 September 1999
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1999
• Plaintiff Counsel: Halijah bte Mohamad (Halijah Mohamad & Co)
• Citation: [1999] SGHC 243
• Defendant Counsel: G Raman (G Raman & Partners)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Lump sum,Just and equitable division,Indirect contributions by petitioner,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Relevant consideration,Maintenance,Principles and relevant considerations,Family home,Division of matrimonial assets,Family Law,Appeal,Whether appellate court can interfere in decision of trial court,Central provident fund,s 112(2) Women's Charter (Cap 353),Matrimonial assets,When appellate court can interfere in decision of trial court,Respondent asking for reduction of petitioner's entitlement to his CPF savings

The respondent in the divorce petition appealed against the decision of the district judge, Mr Khoo Oon Soo (`the learned district judge`), on weekend access, division of matrimonial assets and maintenance for the petitioner. I dismissed the appeal. The respondent has appealed to the Court of Appeal. I now give my reasons. To avoid confusion, I shall refer to the respondent as the respondent although he was the appellant in the proceedings before me. For the same reason I will refer to the respondent to the appeal before me as the petitioner.

The background

The petitioner is a Norwegian. She is now a permanent resident of Singapore. The respondent is a Singaporean. They were married in Oslo, Norway on 11 July 1980. After the marriage, the couple lived in various places, including Oslo in an apartment belonging to the petitioner, and finally at Apartment Block 253, Bishan Street 22, [num ]03-418, Singapore 570253 (`the flat`).

They have two sons; Jean Gilbert Louis born on 20 September 1980 (`Jean`) and Louis Glen Michael born on 30 April 1985 (`Glen`).

On 10 February 1998, the petitioner petitioned for divorce and ancillary reliefs on grounds of unreasonable behaviour on the part of the respondent.

A decree nisi was granted on 24 March 1998 with the application for ancillary reliefs adjourned for hearing in chambers.

The petitioner`s application for ancillary reliefs came up for hearing before the learned district judge in chambers on 21 April 1999. They were for:

(i) joint custody of the two sons with care and control to the respondent; and reasonable access to the petitioner;

(ii) division of matrimonial assets;

(iii) maintenance for the petitioner; and

(iv) costs of the proceedings

At the close of the hearing, the learned district judge made the following orders:

(1) Custody, care and control of the two sons to respondent with access to petitioner as follows:

(a) Weekend access:

(i) for Jean (Saturday 8pm to Sunday 8pm);

(ii) or Glen (Friday evening after school to Sunday 8pm).

(b) Alternate holiday access.

(c) 50% of school holidays with liberty to bring them overseas for holidays. Both parties to be sensible and sensitive with regard to the needs and feelings of both sons on access.

(2) Matrimonial property:

(a) Petitioner entitled to 35% of respondent`s CPF (Central Provident Fund) as of today (21 April 1999) less the CPF referred to below.

(b) Flat to be valued at $440,000. petitioner to be entitled to 35% of the net value after deducting:

(i) respondent`s CPF contributions and interest;

(ii) outstanding HDB (Housing & Development Board) loan. respondent to pay petitioner this 35% within four months failing which the flat will be sold in the open market and distribution to be as stated above but to include deductions for legal costs and expenses.

Respondent to pay petitioner $8,000 lump sum maintenance.Respondent to pay costs fixed at $3,500.Liberty to apply.

The appeal

The respondent appealed against the orders of the learned district judge, contending that:

(i) the weekend access granted to the petitioner to Glen should be reduced to Saturdays 8.00 pm to Sundays 8.00 pm or alternate Fridays 8.00 pm to Saturdays 8.00 pm;

(ii) the award to the petitioner of 35% of the respondent`s CPF balance as at 21 April 1999 should be reduced to 20%;

(iii) the award to the petitioner of 35% of the `net value` of the property as defined in the order of the learned district judge should be reduced to 20%; and

(iv) there should be no order for maintenance for the petitioner.

My decision

On weekend access, at the hearing in the court below, the petitioner applied for joint custody of both sons. She agreed to the respondent having care and control of the two sons subject to the existing access being maintained. She wanted joint custody in order to have a say in their upbringing. She was then enjoying weekend access to the two sons from Friday evenings to Monday mornings. In addition, she applied for access on alternate public holidays, alternate Christmas holidays, 50% of school holidays with the right to take them overseas during her access period. The respondent only opposed the application for joint custody and the existing weekend access.

On his order on weekend access, the learned district judge in his grounds of decision stated:

In respect of weekend access, I considered the fact that both sons are old enough to articulate their respective views and actual access with the petitioner. It is conceivable that both (especially Jean) would be able to inform their mother as to when weekend access would be convenient or otherwise. However, in terms of providing the legal framework for weekend access to avoid further acrimony I was of the view that as both sons are staying with the respondent, it would be more convenient for them to begin school from the respondent`s house on a Monday morning. That being the case I was of the view that weekend access for the petitioner [to Glen]

...