Lam Chih Kian v Ong Chin Ngoh

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeChao Hick Tin J
Judgment Date23 March 1993
Neutral Citation[1993] SGCA 18
Date23 March 1993
Subject MatterDivision of matrimonial assets,CPF fund used to purchase matrimonial home,Family Law,CPF fund accumulated during marriage,s 106(3) Women's Charter (Cap 353),Whether CPF fund constitutes divisible matrimonial asset
Docket NumberCivil Appeal No 14 of 1992
Published date19 September 2003
Defendant CounselSally Chew with Mak Moo Theng (Lawrence Chua & Partners)
CourtCourt of Appeal (Singapore)
Plaintiff CounselEdmond Pereira with Steven Lee (Edmond Pereira & Partners)

Cur Adv Vult

This is an appeal against the decision of Chan Sek Keong J (as he then was) in Divorce Petition No 442 of 1991 wherein the learned judge ordered the appellant (the respondent therein) to transfer his interest in the matrimonial home to the respondent (the petitioner therein) upon the respondent paying the appellant the sum of $40,000 [see [1992] 2 SLR 414 ].

The parties were married on 22 January 1974.
The respondent obtained a decree nisi on 11 September 1991 on the ground that they had lived apart for more than four years since January 1987. Arising out of this marriage the parties have two daughters born on 14 July 1977 and 9 April 1979 respectively. The respondent was granted custody of her daughters who have been in her care and control since May 1989.

The appellant was 49 years old at the time the order was made in respect of the matrimonial home and he was then employed as the Room Division Manager at the Duxton Hotel at a gross salary of $3,250 per month, giving him a take-home pay of $2,518.75.
He had always worked in the hotel industry.

The respondent ran a beautician`s business.
At the start of the marriage she too worked in the hotel industry as a restaurant captain and at some point of time held two jobs (the hotel job besides working as a beautician) to help make ends meet. Her income at the time of the hearing was derived from her business which yielded a pre-tax profit of $23,824.55 for the year ended 31 December 1990.

The matrimonial home at #21-759, Apartment Block 224, Lorong 8 Toa Payoh, Singapore 1231, was purchased in 1974 (the year of the marriage).
The purchase price was $30,000 and it was registered in their joint names. At the time of the proceedings, the flat was occupied by the appellant whilst the respondent and her two daughters were living temporarily with her brother. It was agreed that the flat had a current market value of about $140,000. If the flat was sold, the amount that would have to be returned to the appellant`s Central Provident Fund (`CPF`) account would be $63,640 inclusive of interest, leaving a balance of about $76,360 as a free asset.

There was a dispute as to how much each party had contributed to the purchase of the flat, its renovations, furnishings and fittings.
However the learned judge in the court below took a global approach to the division of the matrimonial assets and held as follows:

(i) The flat had a market value of about $140,000. In addition, the appellant had about $148,000 in his CPF account.

(ii) Moneys belonging to one spouse in his CPF account formed part of the assets available for division if acquired during the marriage. They are assets acquired by the sole effort of the married worker during the marriage and so fall to be divided under s 106(3) of the Women`s Charter (Cap 353).

(iii) There was no evidence that the respondent had a CPF account or any other matrimonial asset in her possession. Thus the couple had matrimonial assets to the value of around $280,000.

(iv) In the circumstances, the respondent should get $100,000 in the form of the matrimonial home. The remaining $40,000 which made up the market price of the home was to be paid by the respondent to the appellant. This division gave the respondent about 35% of the matrimonial assets.



The appellant thereupon appealed to the Court of Appeal.
At the hearing of the appeal, it was contended on his behalf that the learned judge erred in law in taking into account the value of the appellant`s CPF fund as an asset within the ambit of s 106. Alternatively if the appellant`s CPF credit balance should be taken into account as an asset under s 106(3), then the credit balance of $70,000 which the respondent admitted to having in her CPF fund should also be taken into account.

It is clear from his judgment that when the learned judge referred to `matrimonial assets` he meant `assets acquired during the marriage` under s 106.
We propose to do the same in this judgment. Section 106 of the Women`s Charter provides:

(1) The court shall have power, when granting a decree of divorce, judicial separation or nullity of marriage, to order the division between the parties of any assets acquired by them during the marriage by their joint efforts or the sale of any such assets and the division between the parties of the proceeds of sale.

(2) In exercising the power conferred by subsection (1) the court shall have regard to -

(a) the extent of the contributions made by each party in money, property or work towards the acquiring of the assets;

(b) any debts owing by either party which were contracted for their joint benefit; and

(c) the needs of the minor children (if any) of the marriage,

and, subject to those considerations, the court shall incline towards equality of division.

(3) The court shall have power, when granting a decree of divorce, judicial separation or nullity of marriage, to order the division between the parties of any assets acquired during the marriage by the sole effort of one party to the marriage or the sale of any such assets and the division between the parties of the proceeds of sale.

(4) In exercising the power conferred by subsection (3) the court shall have regard to -

(a) the extent of the contribution made by the other party who did not acquire the assets to the welfare of the family by looking after the home or by caring for the family; and

(b) the needs of the minor children, if any, of the marriage,

and, subject to those considerations, the court may divide the assets or the proceeds of sale in such proportions as the court thinks reasonable; but in any case the party by whose effort the assets were acquired shall receive a greater proportion.

(5) For the purposes of this section, references to assets acquired during a marriage include assets owned before the marriage by one party which have been substan-tially improved during the marriage by the other party or by their joint efforts.



Applying s 106(3), Chan Sek Keong J in the court below stated:

CPF contributions are compulsory. They are part of the wages or salaries of workers and employees. They constitute a valuable source of funds upon their
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • CVC v CVB
    • Singapore
    • High Court Appellate Division (Singapore)
    • 8 August 2023
    ...Charter. That CPF moneys are matrimonial assets have been clearly established since the decision in Lam Chih Kian v Ong Chin Ngoh [1993] 1 SLR(R) 460 (“Lam Chih Kian”), where the Court of Appeal stated that “the fact that the fund in a member’s CPF account is subject to restrictions as to i......
  • VD v VE
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 26 November 2007
    ...assets available for division between him and his spouse under s.106’. 59. In the earlier case of Lam Chih Kian v Ong Chih Ngoh [1993] SGCA 18 (‘Lam Chich Kian’) (not cited by either party), the Court of Appeal held “14 In our view the fact that the fund in a member’s CPF account is subject......
  • Lee Bee Kim Jennifer v Lim Yew Khang Cecil
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 9 November 2005
    ...account and Medisave account are to be included. (See Cheng Kwee Eng v Hoong Khai Soon [1991] SGHC 77 and Lam Chih Kian v Ong Chin Ngoh [1993] 2 SLR 253, where the Court of Appeal held that the Central Provident Fund moneys of a spouse are matrimonial 26 In respect of item (b), the petition......
  • Tan Hock Soon v Chew Jee Kee Neo Dolly
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 24 August 2000
    ...for 23 years and they had three children. The wife was for the large part of the marriage a housewife. In Lam Chih Kian v Ong Chin Ngoh [1993] 2 SLR 253, the Court awarded the wife who was a part-time beautician 45% of the matrimonial assets. The parties were married for 17 years and they h......
  • 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