Siak Lye Ping v Chia Tien Leong Benjamin (Chia Kim Teng, Intervener)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Hoo Sheau Peng
• Judgment Date: 31 August 2005
• Neutral Citation: [2005] SGDC 183
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2005
• Published date: 09 February 2006
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tan Siew Kim (Lee and Lee)
• Defendant Counsel: Koh Geok Jen (Jen Koh and Partners),Wong Hur Yuin (Wee Swee Teow and Co)
• Citation: [2005] SGDC 183

31 August 2005

District Judge Hoo Sheau Peng

Background

1. These appeals have a rather convoluted background. They arise from a rehearing of the issue of the division of a property known as 11 Moreton Close Singapore 556481 (‘the House’), registered in the names of the petitioner wife (‘wife’), the respondent husband (‘husband’) and the husband’s father, one Chia Kim Teng (‘Mr Chia’).

Consent order

2. Upon the grant of the decree nisi on 14 September 2001, the husband and the wife entered into a consent order on the ancillary matters, in which, inter alia, they agreed to amicably divide the matrimonial assets, including the House. Subsequently, they failed to reach agreement on the issue, as well as the issues of maintenance and costs.

The original hearing

3. On 4 June 2002, the wife applied by way of summons-in-chambers no. 651086 of 2002 (‘the wife’s application’) for the court to decide on the division of the matrimonial assets, maintenance and costs. On 31 October 2003, I heard the wife’s application (‘the original hearing’). On 4 December 2003, in respect of the issue of the division of the matrimonial assets, I made the following orders:

(1) the matrimonial property at 11 Moreton Close, Singapore, be sold in the open market, and after paying the costs and expenses of the sale and the joint overdraft, the proceeds be divided 66% to the wife and 34% to the husband and the husband’s father.

(2) the wife is to transfer her 16% shareholding in Absolute Sound Distribution Pte Ltd to the husband, without any further consideration.

(3) …

(4) the parties are to retain other assets in his and her own name. In relation to the husband, his assets would include the Tropicana Club membership, the unit in Kuala Lumpur, the Toyota Estima and 60% of Absolute Investments Pte Ltd.

4. In extracting the orders of 4 December 2003, parties added a further order 2, that ‘[T]he parties are to refund their respective CPF accounts from their share of the proceeds.’ Therefore, the orders (2) and (4) above read as (3) and (5) in the extracted Order of Court. The wife appealed against the orders on maintenance and costs, while the husband appealed against the orders on the division of the House and costs. For these appeals, on 17 March 2004, I furnished grounds in [2004] SGDC 65 (‘the first judgment’).

5. In relation to the House, I found that Mr Chia, although a legal owner, was not a beneficial owner. He was merely holding on trust for the husband and the wife. Accordingly, I held that the entire House was available as a matrimonial asset to be divided between the parties. Further, I found that the direct financial contributions of the parties towards the House were 79% by the husband and 21% by the wife. I awarded the wife a further 30% of the House, in view of her indirect contributions towards the marriage, bringing her share of the House to 50%. In accordance with the wishes of the parties, the House was ordered to be sold.

6. In relation to the other assets, I awarded the wife a further sum of $164,850. As there would be balance proceeds from the sale of the House, I ordered the sum of $164,850 to be paid to the wife from such proceeds. Thus, the wife was awarded another 16% of the House. In total, the wife was given 66% of the net sale proceeds of the House, while the husband would retain the other assets, along with 34% of the net sale proceeds of the House.

The intervener’s application

7. Until just before the release of the first judgment, Mr Chia did not formally participate in the proceedings. On 7 April 2003, when the wife’s application was first heard, District Judge Koh Juat Jong, as she then was, raised the question of Mr Chia’s interest in the House. The husband’s previous counsel, from M/s Seah Ong & Partners, was asked to obtain Mr Chia’s consent for the House to be sold. After various pre-trial conferences held over a six month period, the original hearing was fixed before me. On 31 October 2003, the husband’s previous counsel stated that the House was registered in the three parties’ names as joint tenants. However, Mr Chia severed the joint tenancy in May to June 2003. The husband’s previous counsel also submitted that Mr Chia was claiming a third share in the House, but was willing for the House to be sold. The husband’s previous counsel disagreed with the submission by the wife’s counsel that the House belonged beneficially to the husband and the wife, and that Mr Chia was a bare owner only.

8. Despite the stance taken by the husband’s previous counsel, unexpectedly, on 15 March 2004, Mr Chia applied by way of summons-in-chambers no. 650400 of 2004 to be joined as a party, pursuant to Ord 15 r 6 of the Rules of Court. He also applied for the orders in relation to the House made at the original hearing to be set aside (‘the intervener’s application’). Basically, Mr Chia explained that at the material time, he was very ill with cancer. He had no knowledge of the proceedings, as the husband kept him in the dark. M/s Seah Ong & Partners did not represent him in these proceedings. M/s Seah Ong & Partners acted for him only in respect of the severance of the joint tenancy of the House.

9. On why he decided to sever the joint tenancy of the House, Mr Chia explained that in mid 2003, after he recovered from the illness, he wanted to provide for Mrs Chia should he pass away. He met a former neighbour, one Neo Choon Aik (‘Mr Neo’), who was legally trained. Mr Neo advised him to sever the joint tenancy in the House. Should anything happen to him, his wife would have a share in the House. Otherwise, his share would go to the young couple, leaving his wife with nothing. Mr Chia wanted to provide for his wife from his share of the House. When he spoke to the husband about this, the husband suggested using M/s Seah Ong & Partners to handle the matter. To save himself the trouble of appointing new solicitors, Mr Chia agreed. Apart from this matter, Ms Seah Ong & Partners did not act for him.

10. On 4 June 2004, Mr Chia succeeded in his application to intervene in the proceedings. District Judge Jeffrey Sim was of the view that he had no jurisdiction to set aside my orders, and invited the parties to apply to the High Court for the appropriate orders. On 23 September 2004, the Honourable Judicial Commissioner V K Rajah, as his Honour then was, set aside orders 1, 2 and 3 in the extracted Order of Court of 4 December 2003, and remitted the matter to the District Court for rehearing. His Honour also directed that should parties wish, there should be cross-examination of the witnesses.

The rehearing

11. The rehearing was fixed before me on 18 May 2005, after further affidavits were filed by the parties. Counsel indicated that they did not wish to cross-examine any of the parties. On 6 June 2005, based on the affidavits filed, and the submissions, I made the following orders:

(1) Within 3 months of the order, the wife is to transfer her rights, title and interest in the matrimonial property known as 11 Moreton Close Singapore 556481 to the intervener and the husband, upon the intervener and the husband paying the wife one third of the net value of the House fixed at $1,00,000, being $333,333. The wife is to refund her CPF account with the monies used to purchase the property with accrued interests. The intervener and the husband are to bear the costs and expenses of the transfer.

(2) Should the transfer not be carried out as in order 1 above, the property is to be sold in the open market within 6 months of the order, and the sale proceeds are to be used to pay the outstanding OUB joint overdraft and the costs and expenses of the sale. The balance sale proceeds are to be divided equally among the wife, the husband and the intervener. The wife and the husband are to refund their CPF accounts with the monies used to purchase the property with accrued interests out of their one third shares of the sale proceeds.

(3) Within 1 month of this order, the wife is to transfer her 16% shareholding in Absolute Sound Distribution Pte Ltd to the husband upon the husband paying the wife a sum of $86,400.

(4) Within 1 month of this order, the husband is to pay the wife a sum of $31,500 as 50% of the property in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and a sum of $46,950, being 15% of Absolute Investments Pte Ltd.

(5) For SIC No. 650400 of 2004, the husband is to pay costs of $2,000 to the wife and $2,000 to the intervener.

(6) For the rehearing, the husband is to pay costs of $3,000 to the wife and $1,000 for the intervener.

(7) Liberty to apply.

12. In essence, I reversed my earlier finding that Mr Chia was not a beneficial owner of the House, and found that he owned a third share of the House. The husband and the wife have both appealed, and I furnish grounds for the orders.

Division of the House

13. At the outset, I should briefly explain what I considered to be the scope of the rehearing. In the main, I was to determine afresh whether or not Mr Chia has a beneficial interest in the House, and the extent of the beneficial interest, if any. Depending on these findings, it was open to me to consider whether to adjust the orders in relation to the division of the House and the other matrimonial assets.

14. For the rehearing, the wife provided much evidence on the chronology of events, and the position taken by M/s Seah Ong & Partners and the husband at the original hearing, to show that Mr Chia could not have been ignorant of the proceedings, and that M/s Seah Ong & Partners represented him. The wife’s counsel submitted along similar lines, stating that Mr Chia has merely gained an opportunity to be heard. It was open to the court to find that Mr Chia knew about the proceedings all along, and was properly represented at the original hearing.

15. I noted that there was no appeal by the wife against the orders to join Mr Chia as a party and to set aside my earlier orders. What flowed from those orders must be that Mr Chia was not...