Safie bin Jantan v Zaiton bte Adom

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD,Aedit Abdullah J,Quentin Loh SJ
• Judgment Date: 08 February 2023
• Docket Number: Civil Appeals Nos 107 and 108 of 2021
• Court: High Court Appellate Division (Singapore)

Safie bin Jantan

and

Zaiton bte Adom and another and another appeal

[2023] SGHC(A) 8

Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD, Aedit Abdullah J and Quentin Loh SJ

Civil Appeals Nos 107 and 108 of 2021

Appellate Division of the High Court

Family Law — Ancillary powers of court — Moneys given to husband by third party to marriage — Loan on property paid using moneys from third party — Property included in pool of matrimonial assets — Third party intervening — Whether third party could assert right to moneys which had gone into equity of asset held to be matrimonial asset

Family Law — Muslims — Issues within jurisdiction of civil court — Property included in pool of matrimonial assets — Whether civil court could determine third party's right to moneys which had gone into equity of asset held to be matrimonial asset by Syariah Court

Muslim Law — Syariah Court — Jurisdiction — Division of matrimonial property — Whether Syariah Court exercising matrimonial jurisdiction could determine third party's claim to assets held in names of husband and wife

Restitution — Unjust enrichment — Moneys given to husband by third party to marriage — Moneys handed to wife — Moneys used to redeem loan on matrimonial home — Whether husband unjustly enriched

Trusts — Beneficiaries — Party unaware of source when using moneys — Whether trust arose in favour of giver

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The Appeal Board referred to the principles in the Court of Appeal decision of UDA v UDB[2018] 1 SLR 1015 and the High Court decision of UDA v UDB[2018] 3 SLR 1433. It applied the same reasoning in these decisions and held that the Syariah Court exercising matrimonial jurisdiction over divorcing parties had no jurisdiction to determine the substantive rights of a third party to the divorce proceedings: at [8].

(2) Z could have intervened in the Syariah Court proceedings to seek a stay of the divorce proceedings until her rights could be determined in the civil court. Had she been successful in claiming in a civil action that she had beneficial ownership over certain assets before the property division order was made in 2018, the Syariah Court might not have included those assets in the pool of matrimonial assets to be divided between S and N. No such steps were taken: at [11].

(3) S had been unjustly enriched by the Moneys and was liable to return them to Z. S used the Moneys in ways he thought would benefit him. Whether he could have benefited from his use of the Moneys by asking the Syariah Court to treat them as his direct contributions in dividing the matrimonial assets, was for him to pursue. The Moneys had gone into the equity of the flat which was found to be a matrimonial asset and divided by the Syariah Court. This court could not go into the merits of the Syariah Court's order nor reopen its decision: at [12] and [13].

(4) Z's claim against N on imposing an institutional and remedial constructive trust (if applicable in Singapore) failed as N's conduct had not been unconscionable. N did not know that the Moneys were from Z when she used them to redeem the loan on the flat. Her entitlement to retain the proceeds subsequently rested on the Syariah Court's order: at [17].

(5) Z's claim for a resulting trust in her favour failed as she intended to hand over the Moneys to S to be used by S in ways he chose to, to carry out the plan for him to acquire ownership of the flat. For the same reason, a Quistclose trust did not arise as Z had handed over the Moneys for S to use: at [17].

(6) The ultimate outcome of the Judge's order in fact favoured Z. She might not have been satisfied with the outcome as S was her husband, but this situation partially came about because S had undergone divorce proceedings where his assets were held to be matrimonial assets and were shared with N, and neither Z nor S took the opportunity given to assert their claims in civil actions before the conclusion of the divorce proceedings: at [18].

Case(s) referred to

UDA v UDB [2018] 3 SLR 1433, HC (folld)

UDA v UDB [2018] 1 SLR 1015, CA (folld)

Facts

Mr Safie bin Jantan (“S”) and Ms Nafsiah bte Wagiman (“N”) married in 1985 and divorced in 2018. S then married Ms Zaiton bte Adom (“Z”) in 2019. In 2015, Z handed S a cheque and a cashier's order totalling $205,359.80 (the “Moneys”). S handed the cheque and cashier's order to N, who deposited them into her Central Provident Fund account on his instructions and then withdrew $125,717.15 to repay the loan on their matrimonial flat.

In 2017, N commenced divorce proceedings against S in the Syariah Court. In December 2018, the Syariah Court ordered that the matrimonial flat was to be sold and that N was to receive 100% of the net sale proceeds. S applied for variation of the Syariah Court's order. Z intervened in the variation proceedings claiming the Moneys for herself. The Syariah Court varied part of the order in October 2019. On appeal, the Appeal Board set aside the variation order and the original property division order granted in December 2018 was restored.

Z commenced a civil action in the General Division of the High Court claiming the Moneys from S and/or N. The judge (the “Judge”) held that S was personally liable to pay Z the Moneys as restitution for unjust enrichment. He dismissed all her other claims based on institutional constructive trust, remedial constructive trust, presumed resulting trust, Quistclose trust, proprietary restitution and equitable lien. Both S and Z appealed.

Legislation referred to

Administration of Muslim Law Act (Cap 3, 2009 Rev Ed)

Chishty Syed Ahmed Jamal (A C Syed & Partners) for the appellant in AD/CA 107/2021 and the first respondent in AD/CA 108/2021;

Mohamed Hashim bin Abdul Rasheed and Sofia Bakhash (A Mohamed Hashim) for the appellant in AD/CA 107/2021 and the first respondent in AD/CA 108/2021;

Mohammad Shafiq bin Haja Maideen (M Shafiq Chambers LLC) for the second respondent in AD/CA 107/2021 and AD/CA 108/2021.

8 February 2023

Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD (delivering the judgment of the court ex tempore):

Background

1 Mr Safie bin Jantan (“S”) is the appellant in AD/CA 107/2021 (“AD 107”) and the first respondent in AD/CA 108/2021 (“AD 108”). His present wife, Ms Zaiton bte Adom (“Z”) is the appellant in AD 108 and the first respondent in AD 107. Mr Safie's ex-wife, Ms Nafsiah bte Wagiman (“N”), is the second respondent in both AD 107 and AD 108.

2 We dismiss the appeals in AD 107 and AD 108. These are the brief grounds of our decision.

3 S and N married in 1985 and divorced in 2018. S then married Z in 2019. In 2015, on S's request, Z handed S a cheque made out to “CPF” and a cashier's order made out to “CPF BOARD” totalling $205,359.80 (the “Moneys”). S was still married to N at that time. S handed the cheque and cashier's order to N, who deposited the Moneys into her Central Provident Fund (“CPF”) account on S's instructions. N then withdrew $125,717.15 from her CPF account to repay the loan on their matrimonial home, a Housing and Development Board flat (the “Flat”).

4 In May 2017, N commenced divorce proceedings against S in the Syariah Court. The Syariah Court granted a divorce decree on 4 December 2018 (the “2018 Order”) which included an order in para 5 that the Flat was to be sold and N was to receive 100% of the net sale proceeds. Ten days after the 2018 Order, on 14 December 2018, S applied for variation of paras 5 and 6 of the 2018 Order. Z intervened in those variation proceedings, seeking a claim of $205,359.80 for herself. In October 2019, the Syariah Court...