Mok Kah Hong v Zheng Zhuan Yao
Judge | Sundaresh Menon CJ |
Judgment Date | 04 February 2016 |
Neutral Citation | [2016] SGCA 8 |
Defendant Counsel | Ragbir Singh s/o Ram Singh Bajwa (Bajwa & Co) |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 177 of 2013 (Summons No 240 of 2015) |
Subject Matter | Civil contempt,Criminal and non-criminal contempt distinguished,Sentencing,Contempt of Court,Principles,Court's powers |
Published date | 10 March 2016 |
Hearing Date | 10 September 2015,11 March 2015,22 July 2015,15 May 2015 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Bernice Loo Ming Nee and Sarah-Anne Khoo Seok Leng (Allen & Gledhill LLP) |
Court | Court of Three Judges (Singapore) |
The family justice regime in Singapore rests on the power of the court to achieve a just and equitable division of matrimonial assets upon the breakdown of a marriage. This objective, however, cannot be equitably achieved if parties are allowed to conceal assets and act in wilful disobedience of judgments or orders of the court. The former is generally addressed by way of drawing adverse inferences in the exercise of the court’s power to divide matrimonial assets. The latter falls to be dealt with by the law of contempt, where contemnors may be committed to prison or fined for failing to comply with judgments or orders of the court. Regrettably, this was an unfortunate case involving
At the hearing of the substantive appeal, we agreed with the High Court Judge (“the Judge”) that an adverse inference ought to be drawn against the husband for the wholly unsatisfactory manner in which he had disclosed his assets in the course of the matrimonial proceedings. We applied an uplift of 40% to the known value of the husband’s assets and awarded the wife a share of 35% of the gross value of the husband’s assets (
The parties were married on 25 July 1983. They have a son, Mr Tay Daxian, who is now 24 years old. Throughout the marriage, the husband was the sole breadwinner, while the wife was the homemaker. She was primarily responsible for raising the son and she managed the household with the aid of domestic helpers.
The husband has had a mistress, Madam Pok Poh Choo (“Mdm Pok”), since 1989. He has two children by Mdm Pok and he successfully kept this secret from the wife and the son for many years.
The husband first wrote to the wife on 22 August 2008 through his solicitors, proposing a divorce on account of the irretrievable breakdown of their relationship. This was followed by another letter dated 30 December 2009, also through his solicitors, stating that he intended to commence divorce proceedings.
The divesting of assets The husband eventually commenced divorce proceedings on 26 February 2010. At that point in time, in anticipation of the inevitable divorce, the husband engaged in a course of conduct to divest himself of his assets. These findings are detailed in the judgment of the High Court dealing with the ancillary matters of the divorce (see
The husband owned,
On or about 21 January 2010, the husband allegedly pledged his 1m shares in First Grade Agency Pte Ltd (“First Grade”), a company he was a director of, to his father’s sister, Madam Tay Ban Geok (“Mdm Tay”) in return for a loan of S$1m. This occurred only two days after the husband had mortgaged the Stevens Court property. The husband claimed that the proceeds from the loan had been used to pay off his business debts. No documentary evidence was, however, adduced by the husband in support of such an assertion.
On 11 June 2010, which was
This was followed by a transfer of his 1m shares in Inhil Investment Pte Ltd (“Inhil”) to his father’s brother, Mr Teh Jui Kern (“Mr Teh”), on 1 September 2010. With reference to a consolidated summary of share transfers adduced by the husband, the transfer was made for a nominal consideration of S$1. As with the case in Tay Aik Leng, the husband maintained that he was only a mere nominee of the Inhil shares.
The injunction On 15 September 2010, the wife obtained an injunction against the husband from dissipating, disposing and/or dealing with, in any way, the Stevens Court property and the husband’s shareholdings in various companies, including First Grade, Tay Aik Leng and Inhil. The husband, subsequently, in breach of the injunction,
The dispute concerning the division of matrimonial assets and maintenance came before the Judge, who delivered his oral judgment with brief reasons on 28 November 2013. The written grounds of decision (
The Judge made a number of adverse findings as regards the husband’s conduct in divesting himself of his assets. First, in relation to the Stevens Court property, the Judge observed that the husband had obtained a further mortgage in breach of the court injunction. The Judge also rejected the husband’s claim that he had used the loan proceeds to pay off his business debts. It was observed that the husband was unable to adduce
In relation to the husband’s pledging of his 1m shares in First Grade, the Judge found the husband’s evidence that the loan proceeds (amounting to S$1m) were allegedly used to pay off his business debts was “far from clear or convincing” (at [40]). The husband constantly vacillated between the position that the pledge was for a loan already disbursed to him and that the cash advances from Mdm Tay and/or First Grade to him (or his creditors) were disbursements out of the S$1m loan. In addition, the Judge also observed that the pledge was “rather conspicuously executed just a month prior to the [husband]’s filing for a divorce” (at [40]). In summary, the Judge found that the pledge was not genuine and had been fabricated for the purposes of the matrimonial proceedings.
As regards the husband’s claim that he did not receive any consideration for the transfer of his 3m shares in Tay Aik Leng to Mr Tay (
In relation to the husband’s transfer of his 1m shares in Inhil to Mr Teh (
To continue reading
Request your trial