Ong Chin Ngoh v Lam Chin Kian

CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
JudgeChan Sek Keong J
Judgment Date13 March 1992
Neutral Citation[1992] SGHC 60
Citation[1992] SGHC 60
Subject MatterWhether CPF contributions are matrimonial assets,Whether matrimonial home should be transferred to wife or sold and proceeds divided,Division,s 106 Women's Charter (Cap 353),Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36, 1991 Ed),Matrimonial assets,Family Law
Plaintiff CounselSally Chew (Lawrence Chua & Partners)
Docket NumberDivorce Petition No 442 of 1991
Defendant CounselNg Kai Ming (PK Wong & Advani)
Published date19 September 2003
Date13 March 1992

The parties were married on 22 January 1974. They have two daughters, born on 14 July 1977 and 9 April 1979. On 20 February 1991, the petitioner filed for divorce on the ground that the parties had lived apart for more than four years. On 11 September 1991, the petitioner obtained her decree nisi and also custody of the two children who had been in her care and control since 30 May 1989.

The couple had their matrimonial home at #21-759, Apartment Block 224, Lorong 8 Toa Payoh, Singapore 1231. It was purchased in 1974 at the price of $30,000 and registered in the joint names of the couple. The respondent alleged that he contributed towards the bulk of the purchase price and all the repayment instalments, and also the renovation costs of about $25,000, but that the petitioner had contributed only about $2,000 in cash. The petitioner denied these allegations. She alleged that he had not had sufficient income to make those payments and that part of the payments came from the joint bank account which they had maintained and into which their monthly salaries were credited. She also alleged that she had to pay the maids monthly wages of $350 from December 1979 to December 1987, and also paid all the household expenses (other than TAS and PUB bills) during the periods when the respondent was unemployed, viz from February 1981 to March 1982 (13 months), October 1983 to April 1984 (seven months), and February 1986 to October 1987 (21 months).

The respondent did not deny that the petitioner was gainfully employed but denied that there was any such joint account and requested documentary proof, which was not forthcoming. He also asserted that he paid all the household expenses from his savings when he was unemployed.

The flat has a current market value of about $140,000. The amount (inclusive of interest) to be refunded to the respondents CPF account, if the flat were sold, was about $63,640 leaving a balance of about $76,360 as a free asset. The respondent was prepared initially to pay the petitioner a sum representing 50% of the balance, ie $38,180, as her share of the matrimonial home. At the hearing, he was prepared to increase it to $55,000 from the proceeds of sale of the flat to enable the petitioner to secure another HDB flat for the children. That would work out to be about 40% of the sale price, which he considered was fair. In turn, he would be able to refund about $21,360 to the CPF.

The respondent was employed as the front desk manager at Duxton Hotel...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Neo Heok Kay v Seah Suan Chock
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 3 November 1992
    ...Belinda Ang (Belinda Ang) for the petitioner SSidambaram (Legal Aid Bureau) for the respondent. Ong Chin Ngoh v Lam Chih Kian [1992] 1 SLR (R) 574; [1992] 2 SLR 414 (distd) Saniah bte Ali v Abdullah bin Ali [1990] 1 SLR (R) 555; [1990] SLR 584 (folld) Administration of Muslim Law Act (Cap 3......
  • Rayney v Spencer
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 14 November 1994
    ...Petition No 314/91 (refd) Neo Heok Kay v Seah Suan Chock [1992] 3 SLR (R) 390; [1993] 1 SLR 230 (refd) Ong Chin Ngoh v Lam Chih Kian [1992] 1 SLR (R) 574; [1992] 2 SLR 414 (refd) Williams & Glyn's Bank Ltd v Boland [1981] AC 487 (refd) Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36, 1994 Rev Ed)s 21 (c......
  • Chan Yeong Keay v Yeo Mei Ling
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 25 April 1994
    ...... standing to the credit of husband or wife is an asset (see Lam Chih Kian v Ong Chin Ngoh ). The husband wants the division of matrimonial assets ......
  • Koh Kim Lan Angela v Choong Kian Haw and Another Appeal
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 17 November 1993
    ...... account (which is now relevant following upon this court`s decision in Lam Chih Kian v Ong Chin Ngoh ), two insurance policies and a car. It seems to us that these assets - at least a ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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