Tan Siew Eng @ Tan Siew Eng Irene (m.w.) v Ng Meng Hin

• Judgment Date: 18 February 2003
• Date: 18 February 2003
• Docket Number: Divorce Petition No 601061 of 2001
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Tan Siew Eng (alias Tan Siew Eng Irene)

Plaintiff

and

Ng Meng Hin

Defendant

[2003] SGHC 27

Woo Bih Li J

Divorce Petition No 601061 of 2001 (Registrar's Appeal No 720054 of 2002)

High Court

Family Law–Matrimonial assets–Division–Settlement agreement–Repudiation–Whether repudiation valid–Whether settlement agreement binding–Family Law–Matrimonial assets–Division–Settlement agreement–Repudiation of settlement agreement–Whether court should nevertheless take into account terms of settlement agreement when deciding ancillaries

The husband petitioned for divorce in 1999, on the ground of unreasonable behaviour. In 2000, the husband entered into an agreement with the wife in full and final settlement of the divorce and ancillary issues, including the division of the matrimonial assets. The husband subsequently alleged repudiation of the agreement by the wife and that he had accepted the repudiation. The wife disagreed. In 2001, the wife filed for divorce on the ground of adultery. This divorce petition was heard on an uncontested basis and decree nisi was granted.

At the hearing of the ancillaries, the issue was whether the parties were bound by the settlement agreement. The district court held that it should have regard to the settlement agreement when exercising its discretion on the division of the matrimonial assets under s 112 of the Women's Charter. It concluded either that the wife had not repudiated the settlement agreement or, that even if she had, the husband and the wife had nevertheless elected to proceed on the basis of the settlement agreement subsequently. The district court found the terms of the settlement agreement to be just and equitable and upheld it. The husband appealed.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The wife had repudiated the settlement agreement and the husband had accepted the repudiation. The husband had not subsequently elected to proceed on the basis of the settlement agreement: at [24].

(2) Although the settlement agreement was no longer contractually binding on the parties, it could and should still be taken into account as it had been reached after extensive negotiations and neither party had claimed to be misled into entering into the settlement agreement: at [42].

(3) The terms of the settlement agreement were just and equitable and accordingly, the court made an order on the ancillary issues following the terms of the settlement agreement, where they were still applicable: [43].

Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed) ss 112, 116

Arul Suppiah Thevar (Arul & Co) for the petitioner/respondent

Dorothy Chai (Hilborne & Co) for the respondent/appellant.

Woo Bih Li J

Background

1 The parties, whom I shall refer to as husband and wife, were married on 4 June 1977. They have two children. On 24 November 1999 the husband petitioned for divorce in Divorce Petition No 3110 of 1999 on the ground of unreasonable behaviour. The wife filed an Answer on 27 December 1999. On 5 September 2000 the parties entered into an agreement in full and final settlement of the divorce and ancillary issues (“the Settlement Agreement”). The husband contended that the wife subsequently repudiated the Settlement Agreement of 5 September 2000 and that he had accepted the repudiation. The wife disagreed. The husband withdrew his petition on 11 January 2001. The wife then commenced the present divorce proceedings on 31 March 2001 based on the ground of adultery. The husband filed an Answer and Cross-Petition and the wife filed a Reply and Answer to Cross-Petition to which the husband filed a Reply to Reply and Answer to Cross-Petition. However, the wife's petition was eventually heard on an uncontested basis on 30 November 2001, after the parties withdrew their respective Answer and Cross-Petition and Reply and Answer to Cross-Petition and all other pleadings relating to the petition. A decree nisi was granted dissolving the long marriage of 24 years and the ancillaries were dealt with separately.

2 The hearing of the ancillaries was on 10 July 2002. The husband's position was that he was not bound by the Settlement Agreement as the wife had repudiated it and he had accepted her repudiation. The wife's position was that she had not repudiated the Settlement Agreement and the parties were bound by it, and that the Settlement Agreement was just and equitable and the court should give effect to its terms.

3 The district court concluded that it should have regard to the Settlement Agreement when exercising its discretion on the division of the matrimonial assets under s 112 of the Women's Charter (Cap 353). The Grounds of Decision suggest that this was because it also concluded either that the wife had not repudiated the Settlement Agreement or, even if she had, the husband and the wife had nevertheless elected to proceed on the basis of the Settlement Agreement subsequently. The district court also considered the terms of the Settlement Agreement to be just and equitable and upheld it.

4 The husband then appealed to the High Court and his appeal was heard by me. His contention was similar to that before the district court:

(a) that the wife had repudiated the Settlement Agreement and he had accepted the repudiation;

(b) that the court should not have regard to the Settlement Agreement and in deciding on the division of matrimonial assets and maintenance, the wife should be granted something much less than what had been agreed under the Settlement Agreement.

The wife took the same position as had been taken before the district court. After hearing arguments, I concluded that the wife had repudiated the Settlement Agreement which the husband had accepted and that the parties had not subsequently elected to proceed on the basis of the Settlement Agreement. However, I was of the view that the terms of the Settlement Agreement were just and equitable and made an order along the lines of the Settlement Agreement. The husband has appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Did the wife repudiate the Settlement Agreement and if so, did the parties nevertheless agree to proceed on the basis of the Settlement Agreement?

5 Clauses 1 and 2 of the Settlement Agreement dated 5 September 2000 stated:

1. (1) The Husband shall withdraw Divorce Petition No. 3119 [this should read as 3110] of 1999 and he shall allow and consent to the Wife proceeding on a Cross-Petition under Divorce Petition No. 3119 [this should also read as 3110] of 1999 to dissolve the marriage pursuant to Section 95 (3) (a) of the Women's Charter (Cap 353) on the ground of adultery committed by the Husband and that she finds it intolerable to live...