Tan Pau Soon v Lim Beng Choo

JudgeKarthigesu JA
Judgment Date25 March 1997
Neutral Citation[1997] SGCA 14
Citation[1997] SGCA 14
Defendant CounselLeong Chooi Peng (Leong & Co)
Published date19 September 2003
Plaintiff CounselRohana Saharom (David Chong & Co)
Date25 March 1997
Docket NumberCivil Appeal No 19 of 1996
CourtCourt of Appeal (Singapore)
Subject MatterFamily Law,Whether court has jurisdiction to entertain s 106 application for division of matrimonial assets after conclusion of hearing for ancillaries and the grant of decree nisi absolute,Wife gives up share of matrimonial property -Husband not contesting the petition -Whether husband gave any or any adequate consideration for agreement,Agreement between husband and wife on ancillary matters,Failure to apply for division of matrimonial assets during hearing for ancillaries and before grant of decree nisi absolute,s 106 Women's Charter (Cap 353),Matrimonial assets,Divorce

(delivering the grounds of judgment of the court):

This appeal arose from the matrimonial proceedings between the husband and wife and concerned essentially the question whether the court has jurisdiction to make an order for the division of matrimonial assets between the husband and wife under s 106 of the Women`s Charter (Cap 353) after a lapse of some seven years since the grant of the decree absolute dissolving their marriage.
The court below held that it had jurisdiction to make such an order and gave leave to the wife to apply for an order for division of a property which was acquired by the husband during their marriage. Against that decision the husband appealed. We allowed the appeal and now give our reasons.

The facts

The parties were married on 15 March 1979. They have a son, Yong Sheng aged 16 years, and a daughter, Mei Ru aged 13 years. Sometime in 1984, the husband purchased a flat, namely, Block 279 Tampines Street 22, [num ]07-216, Singapore. The purchase price of the flat amounting to $92,600 was paid solely by the husband and the flat was their matrimonial home. The wife left the matrimonial home in August 1987, and on 12 September 1987, filed a petition for divorce based on the fact that the husband had behaved in such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with him. In her divorce petition, the wife sought custody of the two children and their maintenance; but she did not ask for maintenance for herself or a division of any matrimonial asset.

The husband initially contested the petition and filed his answer.
Subsequently, he decided not to contest it, and the parties reached an agreement on the ancillary matters. This agreement was embodied in two letters. In the first letter dated 4 November 1987 which was written by the husband`s solicitors to the wife`s solicitors, it was stated that the husband would have custody of their son, Yong Sheng; pay a sum of $4,000 to the wife and redeem the pawn tickets in respect of the wife`s jewellery; pay to the wife a sum of $100 a month towards maintenance of their daughter, Mei Ru; and contribute a sum of $500 as costs for the divorce and ancillary proceedings. The letter went on to say that in return the wife would agree not to ask for maintenance or lump sum payment for herself or a share in any matrimonial property. The wife`s solicitors replied on 10 November, agreeing to the husband`s terms and added the following:

(a) The wife would have custody of the daughter, but the two children would stay together in the matrimonial home, and while she was staying there the wife would not ask for maintenance for the daughter.

(b) The wife would have reasonable access to the children with liberty to take them out during the week-ends, and, in addition, during the school holidays in June and December, the children would stay with the wife for a period not exceeding a week.

(c) The wife would transfer the maid to the husband to look after the children, and the husband would be liable for the maid`s salary, maid`s levy and the security bond.

These additional terms were agreed to by the husband.


Thus the wife`s petition proceeded without any contest by the husband and the decree nisi was granted on 14 September 1988; the ancillary matters were adjourned for further hearing.


Following that, in accordance with the terms of the agreement, the husband paid the sum of $4,000 to the wife and redeemed the wife`s jewellery which were duly returned to her on or about 12 November 1987.
At the hearing of the ancillary matters, the wife applied for custody of the two children and their maintenance and also maintenance for herself. In her affidavit filed in support, she stated that she intended to apply for a flat from the Housing and Development Board (HDB) so that her children could live in the same household with her. However, she did not apply for a division of the matrimonial flat. The ancillary issues were heard on 1 March 1989 and an order was made giving custody of Yong Sheng to the husband and custody of Mei Ru to the wife. The husband was also ordered to pay to the wife $250 a month as maintenance for the daughter. No order, however, was made in respect of the maintenance for the wife herself. As the wife did not ask for an order for division of the matrimonial flat under s 106 of the Women`s Charter no such order was made. There was no appeal against the order on the ancillaries, and the hearing was therefore concluded. The decree nisi was made absolute on 4 April 1989.

On 24 July 1992, the order for maintenance of the daughter was varied pursuant to the wife`s application.That order was obviously made under s 126 of the Women`s Charter.
At about that time, the wife applied to purchase a HDB flat and was granted an option to purchase it on 16 February 1994. Presumably the purchase was made. The husband sold the matrimonial flat in May 1994. He remarried on 8 July 1994 and now has a daughter of about 2 years old.

All this while, since January 1988 or thereabouts, Yong Sheng had been living with the husband`s parents at Eunos Crescent.
On 12 February 1995, Yong Sheng left the husband`s parents and went to stay with the wife. In consequence, the wife on 16 March 1995 applied for custody of Yong Sheng and maintenance for him and a further variation of the maintenance of their daughter. While this application was pending, the wife on 22 June 1995 applied to court for leave to apply for maintenance for herself in the sum of $500 per month and leave to claim a share in the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial flat. The application was heard before a judge in chambers on 1 September 1995. The learned judge refused to grant leave to the wife to apply for division of the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial flat, but allowed her leave to apply for maintenance. Pursuant to this order, the wife applied for maintenance for herself in the sum of $500 per month. This application and the earlier application filed on 16 March came on for hearing on 23 November 1995, and an order was made granting custody of Yong Sheng to the wife and varying the maintenance for Mei Ru. The husband was also ordered, among other things, to pay maintenance for Yong Sheng and maintenance for the wife.

In the meanwhile, after the learned judge had refused leave to the wife to apply for division of the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial flat, the wife requested for a hearing of further arguments.
Further arguments were heard and on 11 January 1996 the learned judge reversed his earlier decision and granted leave to the wife to apply for division of the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial flat.

The reasons given by the learned judge were as follows.
First, the wife`s agreement to give up her share in the matrimonial flat was made for no consideration or no adequate consideration. Second, an agreement between the parties as to the division of matrimonial assets does not oust the jurisdiction of the court to exercise its powers under s 106 of the Women`s Charter. The learned judge was of the opinion that the words `when granting a decree` in s 106 mean that the court could entertain an application for division of matrimonial assets within a reasonable time after the grant of the decree. The learned judge further held that, although the decree of divorce was granted more than seven years ago, in the circumstances, the wife did make the application within a reasonable time.

The appeal

The first issue before us concerned the validity of the wife`s agreement to give up her share in the matrimonial flat. This agreement was made between her and her husband in November 1987 and was comprised in the letters in exchange between their respective solicitors. It contained terms dealing with the ancillary matters and one of the terms was that the wife would not ask for maintenance for herself or a share in any matrimonial property. It is true that at that time the wife would be entitled to some share in the matrimonial flat by reason of her contribution to the welfare of the family by looking after the home and caring for the family. It is also true that there was no specific quid...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Re Tan Meng Ling
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 18 Julio 2005
    ...at the nisi hearing and adjourned by the court for determination in chambers: Thean JA (as he then was) in Tan Pau Soon v Lim Beng Choo [1997] 2 SLR 372. The question for the Court of Appeal here was whether the court had jurisdiction to make an order for division of matrimonial assets unde......
  • Lee Siew Tin v Loh Hwee Kwee
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 22 Noviembre 2012
    ...defence to plead the defence of limitation but pending my decision on the preliminary issue, the application has not yet been heard. 5 [1997] 1 SLR(R) 585. 6 Limitations of actions in respect of trust property22.—(1) No period of limitation prescribed by this Act shall apply to an action by......
  • Manokaram A/L Subramaniam v Ranjid Kaur A/P Nata Singh, 04-09-2008
    • Malaysia
    • Federal Court (Malaysia)
    • 4 Septiembre 2008
    ...of the Court of Appeal in Chew Ling Hang v Aw Ngiong Hwa (1997) 3 MLJ 107 and the Singapore case of Tan Pau Soon v Lim Beng Choo (1997) 2 SLR 372. The power of the court to order division of matrimonial assets governed by s. 76 of the Act. Subsection (1) of s. 76 relates to assets acquired ......
  • Ng Yuet Mooi v Leong Yee Heim, 25-10-2018
    • Malaysia
    • Court of Appeal (Malaysia)
    • 25 Octubre 2018
    ...in r 56(1)” in the face of s 76(1) and (3) of the Act; and a decision from Singapore Court of Appeal in Tan Pau Soon v Lim Beng Choo [1997] 2 SLR 372. Federal Court was of the further view that section 76 had to be amended to insert the words “or subsequent to the grant; or words to like ef......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT