Neo Mei Lan Helena v Long Melvin Anthony & Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Judge: Regina Ow-Chang Yee Lin
• Judgment Date: 17 July 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] SGDC 28
• Citation: [2000] SGDC 28
• Published date: 19 September 2003

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

Background

1. The Petitioner and the Respondent were married on 14 July 1984. On 2 June 2000, the Petitioner commenced divorce proceedings against the Respondent on the ground that the marriage had irretrievably broken down in that the Respondent had committed adultery with the Co-Respondent, and the Petitioner found it intolerable to live with him. In the alternative, the marriage had broken down irretrievably in that the Respondent had behaved in such a way that the Petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with him. The parties have three children, aged 12, 9 and 5. The Petition was served on the Respondent on 2 June 2000 who filed a Memorandum of Appearance under protest on 9 June 2000 contesting the Petitioner’s claims.

2. On 2 June 2000 the Petitioner applied by way of an ex-parte Summons-in-Chambers application for a Worldwide Mareva Injunction prohibiting the Respondent from disposing his assets up to the value of $600,000.00.

3. In her affidavit filed on 2 June 2000 in support of her application, the Petitioner gave a history of her marriage to the Respondent. Between 1984 to 1993, the parties lived in Singapore. Sometime in 1993, parties decided to migrate to Perth and sold their matrimonial home, a condominium at Diary Farm Estate.

4. The Petitioner said that during the course of the marriage the parties acquired the following properties:

(i) a piece of land in Murdoch, Western Australia purchased in 1986 (paragraph 9(a));

(ii) a condominium at Diary Farm Estate in 1990. This was their matrimonial home in Singapore before it was sold in December 1993 or January 1994 (see paragraphs 9(b) and 11);

(iii) 8/9 Keightley Road, Shenton Park, Western Australia ("the Keightley property"). This property was purchased in 1992 in the sole name of the Respondent (see paragraphs 9(c) and 16);

(iv) 7/233 Hensman Road, Western Australia ("the Hensman property") This property was purchased in December 1995 for A$85,000.00 or A$95,000.00 and was also in the Respondent’s name. The property was rented out and the rental collected was used to service the mortgage instalments. There was an outstanding mortgage of about A$64,000.00 and the property was worth about A$140,000.00 to A$160,000.00 (see paragraphs 9(d), 18 and 19);

(v) 20 Chesters Way, Winthrop, Western Australia purchased in October 1994 ("the Chesters Way property"). This was their current matrimonial home bought in their joint names. There was an outstanding mortgage of A$87,000.00 and the property was worth about A$300,000.00 in the open market (see paragraphs 12, 14 and 15);

(vi) 9, Lampered Mews (see paragraph 21);

(vii) 2 cars (see paragraph 22);

(viii) shares; and

(ix) Central Provident Fund (CPF) monies in both parties accounts.

5. The Petitioner said that there was a real risk that the Respondent would dissipate the matrimonial assets. She gave the following indicators:

(i) On or about 25 December 1999, the Respondent told the Petitioner that he had lost $30,000 playing in the stock Market. He also had a Visa credit card debt of about $8,000 (see paragraph 25);

(ii) After the Petitioner and their children migrated to Perth, the Respondent returned to Singapore sometime in January 1995 and stayed with the Petitioner’s...