Oh Choon v Lee Siew Lin

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 08 November 2013
• Date: 08 November 2013
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 162 of 2012
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Oh Choon

Plaintiff

and

Lee Siew Lin

Defendant

[2013] SGCA 60

Chao Hick Tin JA

,

Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA

and

Judith Prakash J

Civil Appeal No 162 of 2012

Court of Appeal

Family Law—Maintenance—Wife—Proportion of matrimonial assets awarded reduced on appeal—Whether lump sum maintenance ordered should be varied upwards

Family Law—Matrimonial assets—Division—Husband moved out of matrimonial home six years into 18-year marriage—Assets acquired after husband moved out of matrimonial home—Date for determining pool of matrimonial assets—Whether assets fell within pool of matrimonial assets to be divided—Whether court's power of division to be exercised over assets—Just and equitable division of matrimonial assets—Sections 112 (1) and 112 (2) Women's Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed)

The parties were married on 2 August 1993. In June 1999, the husband moved out of the matrimonial home (‘the date of separation’). In August 1999, a shophouse (‘the Shophouse’) below the matrimonial home which was jointly owned by the parties was sold and the wife did not receive any share of the sale proceeds. After the husband moved out of the matrimonial home, he started a new life with a mistress and in April 2010, he purchased a new property (‘the Property’) in the joint names of himself and his mistress. Additionally, he acquired a car (‘the Car’) in January 2010.

After he moved out of the matrimonial home, the husband visited the wife monthly to give her a monthly maintenance of $1,200. When divorce proceedings were commenced by the wife in November 2010, the husband stopped the monthly visits and paid the monthly maintenance via mailed cheques instead. Interim judgment of divorce was granted on 20 October 2011.

The High Court judge held that the Property and the Car were matrimonial assets liable to be divided and awarded the wife a 26.29% share of the pool of matrimonial assets. The High Court judge also ordered the husband to pay to the wife lump sum maintenance of $5,000. The husband appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Held, allowing the appeal with regard to the division of matrimonial assets:

(1) The husband's argument that the date of separation should be used to determine the pool of matrimonial assets was a de facto argument which could not be allowed to find general legal traction. The nub of the matter lay in ascertaining the actual contributions of the wife to the pool of matrimonial assets, and this would in any case take into account the fact that the marriage was a short one when viewed from a de facto perspective: at [13] .

(2) To have used the date of separation to determine the pool of matrimonial assets would have been to ignore the contributions of the wife to the marriage in so far as it could be inferred that some monies from the sale of the Shophouse, which would have been a matrimonial asset liable to be divided, were used in some way or form for the acquisition of the Property or the Car: at [14] .

(3) While the court retained the discretion to exclude specific matrimonial assets acquired after separation by declining to exercise its powers of division over them, this was not done in the present case because account ought to be had to the amount which the wife ought to be taken as having contributed to the purchase of the Property and the Car, having regard to the fact that the husband could reasonably be assumed to have utilised funds which would have been due to the wife in part payment for the property and the car: at [15] and [16] .

(4) During the period after the date of separation, the wife's contributions to the marriage were at best negligible (or perhaps even non-existent). The High Court judge's award of 26.29% of the total pool of matrimonial assets did not correctly reflect a just and equitable division. The just and equitable division was, instead, 15% of the pool: at [20] .

(5) Having reduced the proportion of matrimonial assets awarded to the wife, it was only fair that the lump sum maintenance awarded to her be varied upwards: at [21] .

Foo Ah Yan v Chiam Heng Chow [2012] 2 SLR 506 (refd)

Ong Boon Huat Samuel v Chan Mei Lan Kristine [2007] 2 SLR (R) 729; [2007] 2 SLR 729 (refd)

Yeo Chong Lin v Tay Ang Choo Nancy [2011] 2 SLR 1157 (refd)

Women's Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) ss 112 (1) , 112 (2) (consd) ;ss 112, 113, 114 (1) (a)

Aye Cheng Shone (ACShone & Co) for the appellant

Teh Yoke Meng Christopher (Teh Yip Wong&Tan) for the respondent.

Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA

(delivering the grounds of decision of thecourt):

Introduction

1 This was an appeal by the husband against the decision of the High Court judge (‘the Judge’) in Divorce Transferred No 5661 of 2010. The Judge's grounds of decision may be found at Lee Siew Lin v Oh Choon[2013] SGHC 25 (‘the GD’).

2 On 4 September 2013, having considered the written submissions filed by the parties as well as the oral submissions of counsel, we allowed the appeal with regard to the division of matrimonial assets and consequently also varied the maintenance order made by the Judge. We now give the detailed grounds for our decision.

Facts

3 The appellant-husband Oh Choon (‘the Appellant’) and the respondent-wife Lee Siew Lin (‘the Respondent’) were married on 2 August 1993. The marriage did not produce any children.

4 The matrimonial home at 15 AKalidasa Avenue (‘the Matrimonial Home’) was purchased in 1989 in both parties' names as joint tenants. In June 1999, the Appellant moved out of the Matrimonial Home and on 10 May 2006, he severed the joint tenancy. However, the Appellant continued to hold a set of keys to the Matrimonial Home. The Matrimonial Home was valued at $640,000 with no outstanding liabilities charged against it.

5 It was largely undisputed between the parties that they lived in a state of separation after the Appellant moved out of the Matrimonial Home in June 1999. This was...