LV v LW (divorce: ancillary matters)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 22 March 2006
• Neutral Citation: [2006] SGHC 50
• Plaintiff Counsel: Foo Siew Fong (Harry Elias Partnership)
• Published date: 23 March 2006
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Defendant Counsel: S Selvaraj (Myintsoe & Selvaraj)
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Maintenance,Wife,Quantum of maintenance for wife,Matrimonial assets,Division,Whether wife entitled to larger share of matrimonial assets,Whether lottery winnings part of matrimonial assets,Custody,Care and control,Whether husband should be given joint custody

22 March 2006

Choo Han Teck J:

1 The petitioner (wife), now aged 44, married the respondent (husband) now aged 51, in 1986. She was an economics graduate and taught in a junior college until 1991 when she stopped work to bring up the four children of the marriage. The respondent is a doctor practising as a general practitioner in a clinic in Bukit Batok until last year when he started a new clinic in Choa Chu Kang. They have three daughters aged 12, 14, and 17 respectively, and a son aged 13. All of them are in good schools and have been doing well academically. Three of them are in the “gifted programme”, and the fourth is in a Special Assistance Plan (SAP) school. They lived in their matrimonial flat, a 999-year leasehold property at Toh Tuck Road, which they purchased as joint tenants in 1988 for $390,000. The flat was valued at $650,000 in April 2004.

2 On 19 February 2004 the petitioner filed for divorce based on the unreasonable behaviour of the respondent. She was granted a decree nisi on 23 March 2004. The ancillary matters were heard before a District Court judge and the following orders were made on 25 July 2005:

(a) that custody, care and control of the four children of the marriage be granted to the petitioner with reasonable access to the respondent;

(b) that the respondent provide maintenance of $4,000 to the four children and $500 to the petitioner with effect from 1 August 2005 and thereafter on the first of every month, and that the respondent pay for the household expenses for the matrimonial flat until the flat is sold;

(c) that the matrimonial flat be sold within three months and the net sales proceeds less Central Provident Fund (“CPF”) contributions and the costs of the sale be divided with 70% to the petitioner and 30% to the respondent;

(d) that the petitioner have the first option to purchase the respondent’s share of the matrimonial flat at market price and that she refund the respondent’s CPF with interest, pay the costs of sale and 30% of the net price (market price less both parties’ CPF contribution);

(e) that each party keep his or her assets in his or her own name;

(f) that the respondent pay costs of the divorce petition to the petitioner fixed at $1,500; and

(g) that the respondent pay costs of the ancillary matters to the petitioner fixed at $3,000.

3 The parties cross-appealed against some of the orders. Firstly, the petitioner prayed for a revision of the maintenance for herself and the children from $4,500 to $8,000. Secondly, she prayed for a 25% share of the matrimonial assets other than the matrimonial flat. Thirdly, she prayed for an increase in the award of costs of $3,000 for the ancillary hearing. The respondent appealed against the order granting custody, care and control to the petitioner with reasonable access to the respondent. He wanted an order for joint custody with care and control to the petitioner. Secondly, he prayed for a reduction in the maintenance from $4,500 to $2,500 for the children and $1 for the petitioner. Thirdly, he prayed that the division of the matrimonial flat in the ratio of 70:30 in favour of the petitioner be revised to one of 50:50.

4 Throughout the marriage the petitioner looked after the household, managing it with a budget of about $9,000 a month, which she said was given to her in cash by the respondent. Ms Foo Siew Fong, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the household upkeep as claimed was not challenged in the proceedings below. She rejected the respondent’s claim that he could not afford to pay maintenance as ordered because he was only earning $5,000 to $6,000 a month. She gave two reasons. Firstly, the petitioner knew that the respondent tended to under-declare his income to the tax authorities. She helped to keep the accounts of his clinic from November 1987 to May 1988 and had filed the tax returns on behalf of the respondent. Secondly, Ms Foo submitted that the respondent was concealing his income by the arrangements he made with one Jessica Lew. Jessica Lew is a 38-year-old woman who had been working for the respondent as his clinic assistant since 1994. The main reason for the respondent’s failed marriage was his intimate relationship with Jessica Lew, who was then earning $5,000 a month as a clinic assistant for the respondent. But on 29 July 2004 (after the decree nisi), the respondent signed a partnership agreement with Jessica Lew, making her the senior partner in his clinical practice with a 70% share while he retained 30%. In April 2005 he sold his 30% share to Jessica Lew for $20,000 and became her employee for $5,000 a month. Mr Selvaraj informed me at the hearing of this appeal that the Ministry of Health had directed that he should not relinquish all his shares to a non-doctor so he has since re-purchased the 30% share back from Jessica Lew. However, details of the Ministry’s directions and the terms of the re-purchase were not given by way of evidence.

5 The respondent filed two documents just before this appeal was heard. The first was his income tax assessment form for the year of assessment 2004 which showed an assessable income of $72,496.00. Ms Foo objected on the ground that these documents ought to have been produced sooner. Having looked at the documents and the expanded submission of counsel in an exchange of letters after the hearing of the appeal, I would allow the documents to be admitted. On the substantial worth of these documents, Ms Foo pointed out that from July 2004 the respondent was only a 30% shareholder in the clinic. The second document was an accountant’s report showing that the clinic made a loss of $49,012.56. Ms Foo pointed that the accountant declared in that report that it was a report made “in accordance with instructions given to us, without carrying an audit”. Ms Foo submitted that, furthermore, Jessica Lew was the one who had provided the instructions and...