Tang Kwok Kin v Lock Siew Kiew

• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Judge: Hamidah Bte Ibrahim
• Judgment Date: 17 January 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] SGDC 16
• Citation: [2001] SGDC 16
• Published date: 19 September 2003

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

1. The parties were married on the 15^th of September, 1972 at the Singapore marriage registry. There are 2 children to the marriage (sons) and they are both adults. A decree nisi dissolving the marriage was granted on 25^th of January, 2000 on the wife’s cross petition that the marriage had broken down irretrievably because the husband had behaved unreasonably. ( The husband was granted leave to withdraw his petition which he had filed on the ground that the marriage broke down because of the wife’s unreasonable behaviour.) All ancillary matters were adjourned to be heard in chambers.

2. There were heard before me and I made the following orders:-

1) That the husband transfer his rights, title and interest in the matrimonial property at No 54, Toh Tuck Road, Singapore #02-11 Signature Park within 6 months to the wife upon the husband refunding to his CPF account all funds plus accrued interest utilised by him in the purchase of the said property and all transfer expenses to be borne by the wife.

2) That there shall be no order for maintenance for the wife.

3) That the husband is to retain the Singapore Swimming Club membership and in return the husband will pay to the wife the sum of $20,000.

4) All other assets in the parties respective names are to be retained by them.

5) Costs to the wife fixed at $5,000.

3. The husband has now appealed only against paragraphs 1,3 and 5 of the above orders.

4. After their marriage the wife lived with the husband at the property known as 56, Bournemouth Road. This is a double storey bungalow held in the names of the husband and his parents. The husband therefore has a 1/3 share in this property. The said property became the matrimonial home and in this home the parties lived together with the husband’s parents and raised their 2 sons to adulthood.

5. According to the wife, her mother-in-law was initially in charge of running the household. This continued for a few years until she took over the running of the household. Although she was a full time working wife/mother, the wife said that she had chosen/hired the maids, supervised the maids and did the marketing for the entire household. There were 2 maids in the household when the children were younger. She also spent her time after work with the 2 children and as a result the 2 children are very attached and close to her.

6. Where maintenance of the family was concerned, the husband said he gave his mother $5,000 per month. This is conceded by the wife as in her affidavit (paragraph 30 of her affidavit filed on 25/05/2000) she said that "the Petitioner gave his parents a total of $5,000" per month. The husband also said that his mother used this sum for her personal expenses, salaries for the maids, the groceries and all other household expenses. When his mother was in poor health, the wife would take from her $300 to $400 per week to buy household items. The parties also had a joint account which they used to pay for the outgoings of the matrimonial home and the expenses for the children. However, according to the husband, the wife did not put her salary into the said account and only his salary was used for the expenses of the family.

7. Sometime in January 2000, the parties separated and lived apart after the wife left the matrimonial home. By that time, their relationship had deteriorated and their marriage had broken down irretrievably because the husband had behaved unreasonably.

8. The wife is now 53 years of age and she has been working since 1969 with East Asiatic company. She was eventually over the years promoted to become a property manager, drawing a monthly salary of $7,000 until she was retrenched on 31/12/99. Upon her retrenchment, she was paid a gratuity of $230,000 out of which her employer deducted $84,000 for the purchase of a second-hand car from the company. She is now employed as a property manager with a different company earning a substantially lower salary of $4,000 per month.

9. The husband, 51 years of age, was also retrenched in May 1999 but he has failed in his affidavit to disclose his retrenchment benefits, if any. He claimed to be unemployed and said he had been unable to secure employment since then. While he has not given any details as to his last drawn salary his wife alleged that he received $20,000 per month as general manager, China operations, for Asia Pacific brewery.

10. The parties assets comprised the property known as 54, Toh Tuck road, # 02-11, Signature Park, (Signature Park property) the husband’s 1/3 share of 56, Bournemouth Road, CPF monies, bank accounts, wife’s retrenchment gratuity, jewellery, club memberships, insurance policies, stocks/shares and cars.

11. Where the Signature Park property was concerned, this was purchased jointly by the parties sometime in 1997 for $1,192,320. At the time of the hearing of the ancillaries, the property had an outstanding loan of $211,620 and it had a market value of $1,150,000. The husband had used $580,474 from his CPF account towards the purchase price while the wife had used $323,412 from her account. This property was never used by the couple as a matrimonial home and it was meant for investment purposes. Assuming a sale of the property, there would be a sum of $938,380 (before CPF refund) to be divided between...