Tan Poh Soon v Phua Sin Yin

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: G P Selvam J
• Judgment Date: 30 June 1995
• Neutral Citation: [1995] SGHC 151
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 817 of 1992
• Date: 30 June 1995
• Year: 1995
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tan Hee Liang (Tan See Swan & Co)
• Citation: [1995] SGHC 151
• Defendant Counsel: Geraldine Lim (Allen & Gledhill)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Matrimonial assets,Family Law,Interest in matrimonial property,HDB flat,Whether claim defeated by s 51 of the Housing and Development Board Act,Division,s 56 Women's Charter (Cap 353),s 51 Housing and Development Board Act (Cap 129),Relevant considerations in deciding extent of interest under s 56 of the Women's Charter

Introduction - the application

At the time this originating summons was taken out the plaintiff was the wife of the defendant. They were married in Singapore in September 1963 and they both were Singapore citizens.

Before this marriage the plaintiff had another marriage and two children. She parted from the first husband by `Chinese customary divorce`. The defendant also had been married before and was a widower with six children by his previous marriage. At the time of the second marriage his six children by his first marriage were aged between three and 16. The parties had one child by their marriage - a son born in 1964. By the time the matter came before me, therefore, all the children had come of age - the youngest was more than 30 years old.

From the time of the second marriage until 1966 the defendant worked for the Royal Air Force, Seletar. After the British pulled out, finding a satisfactory job in Singapore was difficult for the defendant. So he went to the Netherlands in 1969 and has lived there since then.

Before he left for the Netherlands the defendant purchased in his sole name a flat from the Housing & Development Board. The purchase price was $7,800 of which the defendant paid $4,500 from his own resources and took a loan for the balance. Long before this originating summons was filed the loan had been redeemed.

In 1989 or 1990 the defendant instituted divorce proceedings against the plaintiff in the Netherlands. A feeling of insecurity about her future led to the filing of this originating summons seeking the following principal reliefs:

(1) A declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to a share of the matrimonial property known as Apt Blk 1 Lor 7 Toa Payoh #11-53 Singapore 1231, in such proportion as the court deems fit. She sought the necessary ancillary orders to give effect to the declaration she sought.

(2) A sum of $200 per month as maintenance for the plaintiff.

By the time the originating summons was heard by me the Dutch court had granted a divorce against the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought no ancillary reliefs in the Dutch divorce proceedings. That divorce, in my view, had very little effect in my consideration of the issues before me. In the event, I made the following orders:

(a) the defendant is to transfer the property known as Apt Blk 1, Lor 7 #11-53 Toa Payoh, Singapore 1231 to the plaintiff upon the plaintiff paying to the defendant 50% of the value of the said property; which value is to be agreed or determined by the court;

(b) there be no order made on the plaintiff`s application for maintenance;

(c) there be no order as to costs on this proceedings; and

(d) Liberty to parties to apply.

Both parties are unhappy with my decision. The plaintiff has appealed against my refusal to award maintenance and costs in her favour. The defendant has appealed against the order directing him to transfer his interest in the flat.

Maintenance

I shall first give my reasons for my decision on the question of maintenance. At the time of my decision the defendant was 72 years old (born in 1923). Though a citizen of Singapore he had for many years been unemployed and living on welfare benefits provided by the Dutch government. In addition to this state of affairs he has been suffering from illnesses for the treatment of which he has been paying out of whatever cash he had and assistance provided by his children. The plaintiff provided evidence that she had worked during most of the time she was married to the defendant. She had worked as a cleaning lady, a bar girl and baby sitter. According to her she had not been receiving financial support from the defendant from the early seventies. In 1974 she took the question of maintenance to Court and a settlement was reached for S$350 per month. This confirms that he had not sent any moneys for her maintenance. After the settlement the defendant, according to the plaintiff, sent no moneys. According to the defendant, however, it was only after 1981 he stopped sending money to her. So by his own admission for a period of 12 years at least she was self-supporting. The plaintiff was 70 years old and unemployed when I made the decision. Those circumstances alone justified the order I made. Additionally I felt it would be unconscionable to make the defendant pay any maintenance. No doubt he had a capital fund represented by his share in the flat. But that applied equally to the plaintiff who was in better health and, according to her own admission, has lived without his support since 1969. She knew how to look after herself, was working as a baby sitter and must continue to do so.

Counsel for the defendant argued that I should recognize the Dutch divorce and decline jurisdiction to entertain the claim for maintenance. This originating summons was taken out before the divorce was granted in the Netherlands. The real question therefore was whether the court`s jurisdiction was divested by reason of the subsequent divorce. I did not decide the point since on merits I held that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintenance.

Rights of plaintiff under s 56 of the Women`s Charter

Now the question of property. The basis of the plaintiff`s...