Soon Ah See and another v Diao Yanmei

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Edmund Leow JC
• Judgment Date: 06 September 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] SGHC 185
• Plaintiff Counsel: A Rajandran (A Rajandran)
• Date: 06 September 2016
• Docket Number: Suit No 69 of 2014
• Hearing Date: 10 May 2016,13 May 2016,14 July 2016,12 May 2016,29 July 2016,17 May 2016,11 May 2016
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Marriage,Succession and Wills,Statutory Interpretation,Construction of statute,Void marriage,Revocation
• Year: 2016
• Defendant Counsel: the defendant in person.
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Citation: [2016] SGHC 185
• Published date: 08 September 2016

Edmund Leow JC: Introduction

When Soon Chwee Guan (“the deceased”) died after suffering spontaneous massive intracerebral haemorrhage (a type of stroke) on 31 August 2013, he left behind more than $170,000 in his Central Provident Fund (“CPF”) accounts (“the CPF monies”). While he was alive, he had nominated his sisters, Soon Ah See and Soon Ah Choon (“the first plaintiff” and “the second plaintiff”, collectively “the plaintiffs”) as his beneficiaries in January 2009. But when the plaintiffs visited the CPF Board on 3 September 2013, they discovered that the deceased’s nomination had been automatically revoked. The reason: he had gotten married without their knowledge on 12 October 2011. The marriage meant that the CPF monies fell to be distributed in accordance with the Intestate Succession Act (Cap 146, Rev Ed 2013), which prescribes, inter alia, that one-half of the intestate’s estate goes to the surviving spouse if the deceased left behind a spouse and children. The wrinkle in the tale is that no one in the family even knew about the existence of the deceased’s spouse, Diao Yanmei (“the defendant”), until after he died. Convinced that this was a sham marriage, the plaintiffs went to court in a bid to prevent the defendant from obtaining a share of the CPF monies.

This case raises interesting questions. There is first the relatively settled question of whether a marriage, if it is indeed a marriage of convenience or a sham marriage, is void under the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, Rev Ed 2009). But even if a sham marriage is a valid marriage for the purpose of matrimonial jurisdiction, the question is whether it will necessarily result in the automatic revocation of the deceased’s prior nomination under the Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36, Rev Ed 2013) (“the CPF Act”). After due consideration, I answer the first question in the negative (although Parliament’s intervention would have changed this from 1 October 2016) and the second question in the negative as well.

Facts

The deceased was born on 31 May 1961. He married his first wife in 1987. They had two daughters. On 21 October 1993, the deceased nominated his daughters as beneficiaries of his CPF monies.

However, the deceased and his first wife divorced in August 2005. The first wife was granted sole custody of and care and control of their children, with reasonable access to the deceased. In addition, the deceased was ordered to pay $150 a month as maintenance for the first wife, and $200 a month as maintenance for each child. According to the first plaintiff, the deceased had a strained relationship with his first wife and children “for they never visited him or kept in contact with him after the divorce”. The two daughters are now in their mid-20s.

On 27 October 2006, the deceased made a will through which he bequeathed his property to his mother and elder sister, who is the first plaintiff. On 5 January 2009, the deceased made a fresh CPF nomination (“the nomination”): he nominated the plaintiffs to receive his CPF monies in equal shares. In doing so he therefore revoked his previous nomination in favour of his two children on 21 October 1993.

On 12 October 2011, the marriage between the deceased and the defendant, who was born on 27 January 1969, was registered. This had the effect of revoking the nomination in favour of the plaintiffs.

The deceased was admitted to hospital on 27 August 2013 and died four days later on 31 August 2013. Before his death, he had been living in Bukit Batok with his mother and the second plaintiff, his younger sister.

After his death, the first plaintiff discovered from the deceased’s friend that the deceased was married. It is not disputed that the marriage took place on 12 October 2011. However, the first plaintiff alleges that “it was a sham marriage to one lady from China, whom neither my family nor I were aware of. We were shocked on hearing the news for none of us in our family knew that my late brother had married”. The first plaintiff asserts that at all material times, the deceased lived with their mother and the second plaintiff. In the course of the 22 months from his marriage until his death, the first plaintiff claims that the family had met the deceased many times but no one was aware or told of the marriage. Also, no one who claimed to be the deceased’s wife attended his funeral.

On 3 September 2013, the first plaintiff went to the CPF Board to ask about the status of the deceased’s CPF monies, but she was apparently told that the nomination in the plaintiffs’ favour had been invalidated on account of the deceased’s marriage. To prevent the defendant from laying claim to the deceased’s CPF monies, the first plaintiff wrote to the CPF Board on the same day as follows:

…

We would like to stop the collection of the CPF money of my brother … who had passed away on 31st August 2013. During this few days, we had discovered that he had another marriage on the year 2011 (sic). Thus we would like to stop this collection and allow our lawyer to investiage (sic) this before any procedure done. Previously he had done a nomination to me and my sister … As marriage will revoke his nomination, we believe that we are the rightful nominees. Therefore we are taking legal action for this matter. We have supporting documents to prove that it is not a legal marriage.

While the plaintiffs attempted to locate the defendant, they sought an interim injunction in the High Court to restrain the Board from releasing any monies in the deceased’s CPF account. This was granted by Choo Han Teck J on 17 September 2013, and extended on 20 January 2014 until further order. The plaintiffs went to the High Court after they were informed by a district judge that the lower court was constrained by the High Court decision in Toh Seok Kheng v Huang Huiqun [2011] 1 SLR 737 (“Toh Seok Kheng”), to which I shall return later.

After the plaintiffs started Suit No 69 of 2014 on 17 January 2014, the defendant sought to strike out the action. On 1 August 2014, the assistant registrar found that Toh Seok Kheng remained good law and that the plaintiffs’ lawsuit disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The plaintiffs appealed the striking out. I heard the parties on 5 December 2014 and allowed the appeal. Parties thereafter proceeded to trial.

The parties’ positions

The plaintiffs’ position is apparent from the facts as described above. They seek a declaration that the marriage between the defendant and the deceased is null and void, with the necessary consequential orders.

The defendant’s side of the story is as follows. She was a divorcee – her first marriage in China had been dissolved – with one child from her previous marriage when she met the deceased through a mutual friend known as Xue Feng. She first came to Singapore in 2004 as a “study mama”, ie, to accompany her son for his secondary school education. Her son returned to China after completing his education in 2012. However, she remained in Singapore and worked as a spa therapist. On occasions both before and after her marriage to the deceased, the deceased related that he, too, was a divorcee with two daughters from a previous marriage. The deceased spoke often of his mother, sisters, daughters and divorce. According to the defendant’s affidavit of evidence-in-chief (“AEIC”), he also told her “numerous details” such as his mother’s age, and about his divorce and his two daughters. Shortly after they met, they fell in love and had intimate relations. He proposed and she accepted his proposal. However, the defendant averred that the deceased told her that it was “not convenient” for her to live with him until they had either rented or bought a Housing & Development Board (“HDB”) flat. Hence, the deceased continued to live in Bukit Batok while she stayed at various locations including in Ang Mo Kio. The defendant also stated that the deceased was “very filial” and wanted his mother to live with them once they got their own place. Therefore, they went to the HDB on a few occasions, including on 13 June 2013, to enquire about the purchase of an HDB flat. It was for this purpose that the deceased printed out his CPF statement and even subscribed to HDB’s e-alert service. The defendant stated that they were alerted by the HDB of a new flat being available in July 2013. However, they did not take up the offer of a two-room flat as they wanted a three-room flat so that the deceased’s mother could live with them. While they lived apart, they would meet almost every Thursday and have dinner, on occasion with “mutual friends”. They would also be intimate when the opportunity arose. On other days, they kept in touch by phone calls and text messages. The deceased also met some of her colleagues while waiting for her to knock off.

The last time she heard from the deceased was 13 August 2013, when he sent her a text message in Chinese “that he was going to jail”. She said that she tried to ask him for details but he sounded depressed and refused to say anything. Phone calls went unanswered. It was only in December 2013 when she realised, through a friend of the deceased known as Neo Seng Kiat (“Neo”), that her husband had died.

The issues

I first resolve the factual issue that is central to these proceedings – whether the marriage is a sham marriage or a marriage of convenience. If I find this to be so on the balance of probabilities, the question is whether a sham marriage is a valid or void marriage under the Women’s Charter. Even if it is valid for the purpose of matrimonial jurisdiction, the next question is whether it will necessarily mean an automatic revocation of a nomination which had been made under the CPF Act.

The factual issue

Having heard from both sides, the evidence clearly weighs in favour of a finding that the marriage was of such a nature that it can only be described as a sham marriage or marriage of convenience,...