Pang Rosaline v Chan Kong Chin
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Court | Court of Three Judges (Singapore) |
Judge | Chao Hick Tin JA |
Judgment Date | 11 September 2009 |
Neutral Citation | [2009] SGCA 43 |
Citation | [2009] SGCA 43 |
Subject Matter | Wife training, managing and supervising domestic help,Division,Wife leaving performance of household chores to domestic help,Matrimonial assets,Family Law,Parties operating financial system whereby both income and liabilities treated as aggregate and integrated whole,Husband paying mortgage instalments and conservancy charges for property directly from salary,Wife being full time civil servant,Whether wife making indirect contributions to purchase price of property,Whether wife making direct financial contributions to purchase price of property |
Defendant Counsel | Goh Siok Leng (Christina Goh & Co) |
Published date | 18 September 2009 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Randolph Khoo and Johnson Loo (Drew & Napier LLC) |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 168 of 2008 |
Date | 11 September 2009 |
11 September 2009 |
|
Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA (delivering the grounds of decision of the court):
Introduction
1 This was an appeal by the wife against orders made by the trial judge (“the Judge”) in respect of the division of matrimonial assets, maintenance as well as costs (see Pang Rosaline v Chan Kong Chin
The factual background
61 The wife had admitted that the husband paid from his salary a monthly sum of $366 to service the mortgage of [the Neptune Court property] since 1980. That being the case, it meant the husband had paid, by July 1992, a total sum of $55,266 towards the purchase price of $55,450. In addition, the monthly conservancy charges of the flat were also deducted from his salary until his retirement. Consequently, the wife’s claim that she contributed towards the purchase price was not only unsubstantiated but contradicted the documentary evidence before the court. If she was working as a social welfare officer for 5½ days a week, the wife could not possibly have contributed indirectly towards the purchase of the flat by being a homemaker and caregiver of the children, more so, when by her own admission, she did no housework when she lived with the husband’s parents and when she moved to the flat later, as maids were employed.
62 Even so, I awarded the wife a 20% share in the flat taking into consideration that the husband had sometimes not deposited the rental of [the Neptune Court property] into the joint account and he had used some monies in the joint account to pay the property tax of the mother’s flat.
[emphasis added]
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tan Hwee Lee v Tan Cheng Guan
...v NJ [2007] 1 SLR (R) 75; [2007] 1 SLR 75 (refd) NK v NL [2007] 3 SLR (R) 743; [2007] 3 SLR 743 (folld) Pang Rosaline v Chan Kong Chin [2009] 4 SLR (R) 935; [2009] 4 SLR 935 (folld) Sim Cheng Soon v BT Engineering Pte Ltd [2006] 3 SLR (R) 551; [2006] 3 SLR 551 (refd) Sigrid Else Roger Marth......
-
Chan Tin Sun v Fong Quay Sim
...743; [2007] 3 SLR 743 (folld) Ong Chen Leng v Tan Sau Poo [1993] 2 SLR (R) 545; [1993] 3 SLR 137 (refd) Pang Rosaline v Chan Kong Chin [2009] 4 SLR (R) 935; [2009] 4 SLR 935 (refd) Tan Bee Giok v Loh Kum Yong [1996] 1 SLR (R) 130; [1996] 2 SLR 188 (refd) Wachtel v Wachtel [1973] Fam 72 (ref......
-
Wong Kien Keong v Khoo Hoon Eng
...(refd) Mac Leod v Mac Leod [2010] 1 AC 298 (refd) NK v NL [2007] 3 SLR (R) 743; [2007] 3 SLR 743 (refd) Pang Rosaline v Chan Kong Chin [2009] 4 SLR (R) 935; [2009] 4 SLR 935 (refd) Sita Jaswant Kaur v Surindar Singh s/o Jaswant Singh [2013] 4 SLR 838 (refd) TQ v TR [2009] 2 SLR (R) 961; [20......
-
ANJ v ANK
...spirit of s 112 of the WC. Objections to this approach were stated in NK v NL at [22]–[29] and Pang Rosaline v Chan Kong Chin [2009] 4 SLR(R) 935 (“Pang Rosaline”) at [23] and more recently, we reiterated the same in Tan Hwee Lee v Tan Cheng Guan and another appeal and another matter [2012]......