Pan Yee Ching v Wee Aik Joo

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tay Yong Kwang JC
• Judgment Date: 22 November 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] SGHC 351
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2001
• Published date: 18 March 2013
• Plaintiff Counsel: Vijay Kumar (Vijay & Co)
• Defendant Counsel: Pascal Netto (Tang & Tan)
• Citation: [2001] SGHC 351

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

THE BACKGROUND

1 On 20 July 1992, the Petitioner/Wife filed this divorce petition on the ground that the parties had lived apart for a continuous period of at least four years after the Respondent/Husband left the matrimonial home on 29 September 1987. The parties will henceforth be referred to as Wife and Husband respectively for easy reference. Besides dissolution of the marriage, the Wife prayed for custody of the two children, that the Husband be ordered to transfer his share in the flat known as 137 Sunset Way #09-08 Singapore to her, that maintenance for herself be paid by the Husband, costs and further or other orders/reliefs.

2 On 6 August 1992, Punch Coomaswaramy J granted a Decree Nisi to be made absolute in three months, gave custody of the two children to the Wife with liberty to the Husband to apply for access and directed the order for maintenance in Divorce Petition No. 856 of 1990 (an earlier petition also commenced by the Wife) to continue until further order notwithstanding the withdrawal of that earlier petition. The judge also ordered that the issues of matrimonial property and maintenance for the Wife and the two children be adjourned to Chambers with the parties to file an affidavit each by 15 August 1992. The order made in the earlier petition was for $600 per month to be paid as maintenance for the Wife and the two children.

3 In compliance with the judges order, both parties filed an affidavit each on 15 August 1992.

4 For some unknown reason, the parties then allowed the ancillary matters to go into long hibernation. The Registry of the Supreme Courts letters in 1996 and 1997 urging the parties to proceed so as to make the Decree Nisi absolute apparently failed to rouse them from their slumber. A reminder followed in April 2000. Finally, on 7 June 2001, the Wifes solicitors wrote to restore the ancillary matters for hearing.

THE PARTIES AND THEIR CHILDREN

5 The Wife is 50 years old, her date of birth being 25 August 1951. The Husband is 62 years old, having been born on 18 January 1939. They were married on 16 May 1975. The elder child, a female, was born on 26 March 1976 and is now 25 years old. The younger child, a male, was born on 17 October 1981 and is now 20 years old.

THE MATRIMONIAL ASSET

6 The property in issue is a flat with a floor area of approximately 182 square metres (about 1960 square feet) located in the condominium known as Clementi Park in Sunset Way.

THE WIFES AFFIDAVITS

7 In her first affidavit filed on 15 August 1992, the Wife said she had been working since 1973, stopping work between 1981 and 1984 to look after the two then very young children. She worked during the marriage to support the family when the Husband claimed he was unemployed. When the Husband left the matrimonial home in September 1987, he claimed he was unable to obtain proper employment to support the children because of his age and his lack of experience.

8 The Wife engaged a private investigator who reported that the Husband was working at a certain company.

9 On 15 October 1990, the Husband was ordered to pay $600 per month as maintenance for the Wife and the two children.

10 The improper behaviour of the Husband in abusing the Wife in public and at her workplace caused her to lose her jobs as a real estate agent and an insurance agent. She estimated her expenses and those for the two children to be $2,265 per month at that time. Since 1986, she had also been paying $2,320 per year as maintenance charges and $929.20 per year as property tax in respect of the matrimonial home.

11 She had been working hard and had also got loans and handouts from her brothers to make ends meet. She believed that the Husband would claim inability to increase the maintenance of $600 per month even if ordered by the Court to do so.

12 In 1976, the parties purchased a property at 5000A Laguna Park #06-03 in their joint names for $59,000. She paid a cash deposit of about $11,800 and contributed $18,880 from her CPF account. She also paid some $40,000 for the renovation, furnishings and fittings. The Husband only contributed about $28,320 from his CPF account.

13 In 1984, they sold that property for $300,000. After deducting the commission paid to the real estate agent, the reimbursements to their respective CPF accounts and the rental they paid for a flat at $750 per month for 20 months ($15,000), the profit from the sale was $180,000.

14 In 1984, the parties purchased the present matrimonial home in their joint names for $493,000. The Wife contributed $56,840 from her CPF account and about $38,396 in cash towards the purchase of this property. She also contributed another $77,000 or so for the legal and stamp fees, renovations, furnishings and fittings. The Husband contributed $217,764 from his CPF account. The balance of the purchase price was paid from the profit from the sale of the Laguna Park property.

15 Despite the Husbands misbehaviour and threats of divorce, she raised her children well and also served the Husband well.

16 Besides the matrimonial home, she had no other property here or abroad. The children were doing well in their studies and she was worried about their future education. As the Husband was not providing sufficient maintenance for her and the two children, she asked the Court to order the Husbands half share in the matrimonial home to be transferred to her to assure the family of a roof over their heads and so that the matrimonial home could be used for their future needs and the two childrens tertiary education. However, she requested that the transfer of the Husbands half share take place only after 18 January 1994 when the Husband would be 55 years old. Presumably, this was because his CPF contributions used for the matrimonial home would not then be required to be refunded to his CPF account. She asked that she and the two children be allowed to continue living in the matrimonial home until the transfer or, alternatively, until they completed their tertiary education.

17 In her second affidavit filed on 21 June 2001, the Wife stated that the Husband gave her $1,300 per month (instead of the $600 per month ordered) for the last two years after she pleaded with him. Besides that, he had completely neglected her and their two children. He was gainfully employed in a Singapore company in Vietnam and appeared to be having a good life.

18 The daughter obtained a diploma in business studies from Ngee Ann Polytechnic in 1996. She then went to study in Melbourne, Australia, obtaining a Bachelor of Commerce from Deakin University in 1998. She then returned to Singapore, worked for a couple of years with Pacific Internet but left the company disillusioned as the work she was asked to do was not in line with her studies. She is now pursuing a course in Information Technology and Web Design application at Informatics to upgrade herself. She is also very keen to do a four-year course in MultiMedia Art at La Salle SIA College of Art and would require about $74,400 for the course commencing in July 2001.

19 The Husband did not provide any financial support for the daughters education. The Wife took loans from her third brother to see the daughter through Ngee Ann Polytechnic and Deakin University. She promised to repay him when the matrimonial home was sold. Her third brother lent her a total of about $15,000 for the Ngee Ann Polytechnic course between 1993 to 1996. In 1993, he also lent her $4,000 for the daughter to purchase a personal computer. For the daughters education and expenses in Australia, the Wife took a loan of $62,000 from her brother.

20 In September 2000, her third brother bought a personal computer for the daughter. The brother was now out of job and was in the process of setting up a consultancy firm.

21 The Wife then stated that her brothers and sister-in-law were aware of her hardship and had never asked for repayment of the loan amounts. However, the Wife had always hoped that she would be able to repay the loans from the sale proceeds of the matrimonial home.

22 The son completed his A Levels at Anglo-Chinese Junior College, obtaining 3 As, 1 B and 1 C. He is now in National Service. He would be pursuing a course in Sociology at the National University of Singapore in the academic year 2002. His tuition fee, hostel accommodation and other expenses would cost about $19,200 per year or $57,600 for the three-year course.

23 The Wife said she did not remarry as she wanted to devote her full attention and energy to her two children. The son was asthmatic. As the $600 per month maintenance was insufficient, she had to work to make ends meet. She also had to do all the housework herself as she could not afford a maid.

24 She is now 50 years old and unemployed. It would be difficult for her to find another job because of her age. She then elaborated on the loans she had taken from her second brother and his eldest sister-in-law. Her second brother had lent her $36,000 for the son between 1992 and 1997 at $500 per month whereas the sister-in-law had lent her another $36,000 for the daughters tuition fee between 1987 and 1992 also at $500 per month. This was confirmed by the second brothers wife, who filed an affidavit on her husbands behalf as he was abroad, and by the said sister-in-law.

25 She had been paying the outgoings of the matrimonial home, including repairs, since February 1986 amounting to $61,110. The home was in a poor condition and would probably fetch about $800,000 if sold. As the Husband is now 62 years old, he is no longer required to refund the CPF monies to his CPF account. She therefore prayed that the Husband transfer all his right, title and interest in the matrimonial home to her.

26 The third brother affirmed an affidavit to confirm that he had lent the Wife the sums of money mentioned by her. In addition, he said that he paid for the levy and salary for the maid between 1988 and 1994. This maid looked after...