Ng Hwee Keng v Chia Soon Hin William

JudgeKarthigesu JA
Judgment Date24 April 1995
Neutral Citation[1995] SGCA 39
Citation[1995] SGCA 39
Defendant CounselLee Soo Chye and Kau Yong Meng (SC Lee Kau & Pnrs)
Published date19 September 2003
Plaintiff CounselJeanny Ng (Jeanny Ng)
Date24 April 1995
Docket NumberCivil Appeal No 148 of 1994
CourtCourt of Appeal (Singapore)
Subject Matters 106(1), (2) & (4) Women's Charter (Cap 353),Assessment,Distribution of assets jointly acquired during marriage,Whether husband exempted thereby from maintaining wife after divorce,Matrimonial assets,s 106(3) & (4) Women's Charter (Cap 353),Matters to consider,Distribution of assets solely acquired during marriage,Whether non-financial contribution to welfare of family a relevant factor,Matrimonial property,No maintenance payments made during subsistence of marriage,Maintenance,Division,Court's approach,Whether contribution to welfare of family a relevant factor,s 108 Women's Charter (Cap 353),Family Law

Cur Adv Vult

This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court in respect of maintenance of the wife and division of matrimonial property made in the divorce proceedings. The wife appeals on the ground that the amount of maintenance awarded to her and the division of matrimonial assets made in her favour were far too low.

Background

The husband and wife are both aged 43 years. They were married on 7 October 1975 and have an adopted son, now 12 years old. On 9 November 1993, the wife petitioned for divorce on the ground of adultery committed by the husband. The husband did not contest the petition and the decree nisi was granted on 10 March 1994. The ancillary matters were adjourned for further hearing in chambers. The question of custody and access of the child were later agreed upon by the parties, the husband having the care and control of the child with the wife having access to him at stipulated times during the weekends. The matters in dispute between them and subsequently heard before the High Court were the division of matrimonial assets and the maintenance of the wife.

Matrimonial assets

The wife is a postmaster drawing a monthly net salary of $1,470 per month, including overtime allowances and incentive bonuses. The husband is a bank manager presently earning about $5,008 net per month, but not including bonus and other perquisites. He is also a part-time lecturer at the Institute of Banking and Finance for which he receives a salary of about $1,000 per month. Particulars of the parties` various assets and the husband`s liabilities were disclosed in their affidavits. The parties also gave viva voce evidence in court and were cross-examined on their affidavits.

(i) Eunos Road flat

During their marriage, the parties lived at Blk 411, Eunos Road, #10-130, Singapore 1440 (the Eunos Road flat), which was then their matrimonial home. It is a five-room flat which was purchased by them as joint tenants in July 1984 from the Housing and Development Board (HDB) at the price of $112,900. The purchase price was paid by a downpayment of $72,994.50 and a loan from HDB repayable with interest by monthly instalments. The downpayment was made by both the husband and wife from their respective accounts with the Central Provident Fund Board (CPF); however, the loan instalments were paid only by the husband and the loan with interest was fully repaid in 1989.

Subsequent to the breakdown of the marriage, the parties agreed that the flat should be sold.
They also agreed that a sum of $100,000 from the proceeds of sale should be paid to the husband`s mother for her financial assistance and contribution towards the purchase of the flat. The flat has since been sold for $380,000. Of this amount, $33,859.98 had been repaid to the CPF account of the wife and $143,971.88 to the CPF account of the husband, and, as agreed, $100,000 had been paid to the husband`s mother, thus leaving a balance of $102,168.14. This sum has been paid to the wife pursuant to the order made below. The sums stated as having been paid to the respective CPF accounts of the husband and wife were furnished to us and confirmed as correct by counsel for both parties; however they do not tally exactly with the corresponding sums appearing in the judgment below. For our purpose, we shall take the sums as now furnished by counsel.

(ii) Duku Road flat

Sometime in early 1993, the husband purchased an apartment at No 38C, Duku Road, Cannaville, Singapore 1542 (the Duku Road flat) in his own name and without any financial contribution from the wife. The husband financed the purchase with a housing loan of $259,974.20, and an overdraft facility from Overseas Union Bank Ltd (OUB) and also his funds from his CPF account. In August 1993, the husband moved out of the matrimonial flat (ie Eunos Road flat) and stayed at the Duku Road flat. He now lives there with his son, his mother and the co-respondent. It was agreed by the parties to these proceedings that the value of this property at the material time was $580,000.

(iii) CPF funds

The husband`s funds in his CPF account at the material time amounted to $398,988.16 which includes an amount of $194,544.42 utilized for the purchase of the Duku Road flat. The wife`s funds in her CPF account, on the other hand, amounted to $76,088.46. Both these figures include the refunds made to their respective CPF accounts from the proceeds of sale of the Eunos Road flat.

(iv) Other assets

Several other assets, namely, shares, jewellery, savings in bank accounts and a car, were also disclosed in the affidavits. It was not disputed that at the date of the dissolution of the marriage, the wife owned or held shares valued at $63,263.75, and similarly the husband owned or held shares worth $26,474. It was also not disputed that the wife possessed jewellery valued at $9,724 and had funds in her bank account in the sum of $7,354.14, and the husband had jewellery worth about $1,000 and funds in his bank account in the sum of $3,636.81. There is a car, a Mercedes Benz 200, which is owned by the husband and its value at the material time was estimated at $40,000. The husband also has a membership in Aranda Country Club, which was acquired by him for $15,000 after the dissolution of the marriage and without any contribution from the wife.

(v) Liabilities

Besides his financial commitments in respect of the Duku Road flat, the husband also disclosed his debit balances in his overdraft accounts with Tat Lee Bank Ltd, being $12,118.27, and with OUB, being $116,214.83, as at 31 March 1994. The wife, however, did not have any subsisting liability. There is some dispute on the aggregate amount of liabilities of the husband. The wife accepted the figure for the Tat Lee Bank account but disputed the amount of the OUB overdraft, contending that it should be much lower. She stated that in February 1994, this overdraft was only $20,502.27, but in March 1994, it had somehow substantially increased to $116,214.83. The husband accepted that this was so but explained that the increase arose from his utilization of the OUB overdraft account to consolidate his three other overdraft accounts with Citibank NA, Standard Chartered Bank and United Overseas Bank Ltd respectively. The consolidated OUB account was then secured by the Duku Road flat. The husband claimed that he did this to save interest payments. The wife, however, disputed that and said that from her examination of the documents disclosed, the sum total of these overdraft accounts only amounted to $37,985, and that the true figure should be $58,428.27, comprising the sum of $37,985 and the previous balance of $20,502.27 as at February 1994. We are unable to accept the wife`s allegations. The evidence in the affidavit seems quite clear. On appeal, counsel for the respondent stated that as of 31 May 1994 the OUB overdraft was $153,691.30. However, we note that the date of dissolution of the marriage was 31 March 1994 and that should be the cutoff point; the subsequent increase is not relevant. The correct figure therefore should instead be $116,214.83 as given in the husband`s affidavit, representing the debit balance of the overdraft as at 31 March 1994.

Total value of the assets and liabilities

It may be helpful to set out in a tabular form, the assets of the parties and their respective amounts or values and the liabilities of the husband:

Assets Husband Wife Total

(1) Balance of net proceeds

of sale of Eunos Road flat - - $ 102,168.14

(2) Duku Road flat $ 580,000.00 - $ 580,000.00

(3) CPF funds $ 204,443.74 (less $ 76,088.46 $ 280,532.20

$ 194,544.42 utilized

for Duku Road flat)

(4) Shares $ 26,474.00 $ 63,263.75 $ 89,737.75

(5) Savings $ 3,636.81 $ 7,345.14 $ 10,981.95

(6) Car $ 40,000.00 - $ 40,000.00

(7) Jewellery $ 1,000.00 $ 9,724.00 $ 10,724.00

$ 855,554.55 $ 156,421.35 $1,114,144.04



Liabilities

(1) OUB housing loan $ 259,974.20 -

(2) OUB overdraft $ 116,214.83 -

(3) Tat Lee Bank overdraft $ 12,118.27 -

$ 388,307.30



Decision below

The ancillary matters in dispute were heard before KS Rajah JC. Before him, the wife sought an equal division of the total amount of the matrimonial assets disclosed. In particular, she wanted an equal division of the CPF funds, the entire balance of the proceeds of sale of the Eunos Road flat and an equal share in the Duku Road flat. The wife admitted that she did not make any direct financial contribution towards the purchase of the Duku Road flat but contended that she had a share in it by virtue of the fact that the husband had used funds acquired during their marriage to purchase it, namely, an amount of $194,544.42 from his CPF account.

The husband contended that the Duku Road flat was acquired by his sole effort, without any form of assistance by the wife, and should therefore not form part of the assets available for division.
He asserted that it was not possible to sell the flat as it was required to provide accommodation for him and his son. He argued that the bulk of the matrimonial assets were acquired by his sole effort, especially as the wife was working full-time and did not make a substantial contribution to the welfare of the family. He claimed that their son was mainly looked after by his mother and not the wife, and that the mother was responsible for most of the household work. The husband also claimed that he only possessed about $20,632.22 in liquid assets, the rest being tied up in CPF funds and in the Duku Road flat. He proposed that the net balance of the proceeds of sale of the Eunos Road flat (after deduction of the respective refunds to the CPF accounts and the payment of $100,00 to his mother) be paid to the wife in full satisfaction of her claim. As the wife intended to purchase a three-room HDB flat, he claimed that with these proceeds of sale and her own CPF funds, she would have more than sufficient funds to finance the purchase of such flat.

The
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
54 cases
  • Chan Choy Ling v Chua Che Teck
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 20 septembre 1995
  • Chia Chew Gek v Tan Boon Hiang
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 26 février 1997
    ...during the marriage by the joint effort of both parties (s 106(2)) was stated by this court in Ng Hwee Keng v Chia Soon Hin William [1995] 2 SLR 231. The headnote (2) is an admirable summary of that approach. It reads: In determining a division of matrimonial assets under s 106(2), the cour......
  • Teau Ah Kau v Wong Kim Foong
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 janvier 1998
  • NK v NL
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 19 juillet 2007
    ...respective contributions”. And, in a similar vein, L P Thean JA, in a decision of this court in Ng Hwee Keng v Chia Soon Hin William [1995] 2 SLR 231, observed (at 241, [28]) that division is “not a pure exercise in arithmetic that would yield some degree of exactitude and certainty”. This ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Family Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2000, December 2000
    • 1 décembre 2000
    ...the case required it: see, for instance, the approach of LP Thean JA in the Court of Appeal case of Ng Hwee Keng v Chia Soon Hin William[1995] 2 SLR 231. Section 112 of the Charter no longer draws the distinction between joint and sole acquisition. As seen from the dicta and reasoning set o......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT