Tan Bee Giok v Loh Kum Yong

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: G P Selvam J
• Judgment Date: 31 January 1996
• Neutral Citation: [1996] SGHC 19
• Docket Number: Divorce Petition No 1240 of 1992
• Date: 31 January 1996
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1996
• Plaintiff Counsel: Chim Hou Yan and Pradeep Kumar (Hilborne & Co)
• Citation: [1996] SGHC 19
• Defendant Counsel: Eric Siow (Godwin & Co)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Divorce,Burden of proof on wife in doubtful cases,Wife,Family Law,Allegation of obvious and gross conduct,Maintenance,Allegation that wife had resources of her own,Ancillary relief,Whether such allegations could affect award

Cur Adv Vult

The ancillary matters

This judgment concerns ancillary reliefs sought by the wife following the pronouncement of a decree nisi. The decree nisi was granted on the wife`s divorce petition.

The parties were married in 1969, that is 27 years ago. They have a son and a daughter by the marriage. At the time the decree nisi was pronounced on 7 June 1994, the children were adults. The son was 24 years old and the daughter 23 years. The wife in 1994 was 47 years old and the husband was 56 years old. This was the second divorce for the husband.

The grounds on which decree nisi was pronounced was that the husband had behaved in such a way that the petitioner could not reasonably be expected to live with the husband. There was a cross-petition by the husband on a similar ground and on adultery but at my suggestion it was not proceeded with.

The ancillary matters adjourned to chambers were:

(i) maintenance for the wife.

(ii) division of assets in the name of the husband.

The wife sought an equal division.

The husband asked the court to deny the wife`s claim for maintenance and a share in the assets in his name.

The background

First, an outline of the factual background. This is not a case of a housewife devoting her energies to homemaking and having a job bringing a regular fixed income. The wife`s case was that initially she worked in her father`s company whose business was repairing electrical fittings in ships. Three years into the marriage she stopped working altogether. According to the husband, she did not work on a regular basis for her father`s company and after her marriage she stopped working. As in the second year of marriage she gave birth to a son and in the third year to a daughter and the company she was supposed to have worked for belonged to her father, she could not be called a working wife in the conventional sense of the term. She was not a financial contributor to the household. The wife then said that she had to do all the housework. In my view this is an exaggeration as, admittedly, she had a housemaid to assist. On the evidence before me it cannot, however, be denied that she had management of the household and the upbringing of the children during the formative years of their life. This was nearly 20 years.

The husband at the time of the marriage had a managerial post in a shipping company - Sime Darby Shipping. In 1972 the husband and the wife`s father incorporated a company called Inter Ocean Towing Pte Ltd which purchased a vessel called the `Wilbie`. The husband`s father lent some $100,000 to the company to purchase the vessel. Later, the company purchased another vessel, the `Wilvin`. Both vessels were managed by Sime Darby Shipping while the husband was employed by that company. The husband formed another company called Shibatsu Pte Ltd in 1976.

Later, the husband left Sime Darby Shipping and devoted his time to operating vessels owned by limited companies in each of which he had a substantial interest. At the time the decree nisi was granted, his interest in the companies were as follows:

Company`s name Husband`s shareholding

Inter-Maritime (Pte) Ltd 90,000 (75.0%)

Oceanic Carriers Pte Ltd 60,000 (50.0%)

Inter-Ocean Towing Pte Ltd 5 (62.5%)

Inter-Ocean Sands Pte Ltd 243,000 (72.0%)

Heritage Kitchen Pte Ltd 30,000 (30.0%)

The wife was also a shareholder in some of those companies but in 1991, after she left the husband and before the divorce petition was filed, she transferred her shareholding to her son. For her directorships in the companies she was paid a fee.

Soon after the parties were married they lived at 28 Jalan Ladah Puteh. This property was sold and another property, 44 Prince of Wales Road, was purchased in 1974 for about $220,000. It was purchased in their joint names. It was their matrimonial home. This property was sold in 1986 when the parties moved into 19 Trevose Crescent which then was owned by the husband`s mother. Subsequently in 1988 the husband became the owner of this property as a bequest by his mother.

It is to be inferred from the affidavit evidence before me that the children completed their secondary education in Singapore. They went overseas for their tertiary education. At the time of granting of the decree nisi they had not completed their education. The husband has been solely financing their education.

The husband, in addition to the inheritance of 19 Trevose Crescent, did well in his business. This enabled the couple to invest in the purchase of small commercial property - 15 Enggor Street, #09-04, Realty Centre, Singapore. They and a third party own the property as tenants in common. The husband has a 60% interest in it, the wife 15% and the third party 25%.

The wife said in her petition that the husband`s behaviour became unreasonable and unbearable and that in 1982 and 1988 she suffered mental breakdowns and that the husband was a gambler. But the evidence shows that the couple lived well and this included whole night mahjong sessions held by the husband. The wife was part of the lifestyle of the husband in that she energetically assisted him in entertaining his friends and clients. The fact that in 1989 they acted together in purchase of the Enggor Street property shows that things were not as terrible as she sought to make out. Further, she said in affidavit evidence that from the time he was working for Sime Darby until perhaps 1990 she was an integral part of the husband`s life of entertainment. Unquestionably, she enjoyed arranging parties and cooking for the husband and his friends.

The maintenance claim

The wife asked for maintenance based on a monthly expenditure of $7,544. What was pressed for on her behalf was a lump sum award of $530,000 and a further award of $300,000 for a period from 1991 to 1995 during which period she had not been paid a cent by the husband.

The husband challenged her right to maintenance. The husband`s grounds for saying that she should be denied maintenance were as follows. First, it was said that she has been financially supported by her lover - the party cited. In support of this ground the husband drew the attention of the court to the fact that the wife was keeping a lifestyle more extravagant than during the years of her marriage. There had been deposited into her bank account large sums of money during the last four years making a total of some $500,000. The wife failed to reveal the sources of the funds. She was evasive in disclosing the relevant documents and failed to give full and frank disclosure of her assets and income.

Secondly, it was argued that the wife`s conduct was so `obvious and gross` that it would be inequitable to grant any maintenance to her.

The law

The Women`s Charter (Cap 353) confers on the court the power to award maintenance and make an order for property adjustment in favour of the wife when it grants a decree nisi of divorce - see ss 107 to 115 on...