Tay Sin Tor v Tan Chay Eng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Kan Ting Chiu J
• Judgment Date: 15 May 1999
• Neutral Citation: [1999] SGHC 126
• Docket Number: District Court Appeal No 5067 of
• Date: 15 May 1999
• Year: 1999
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Oommen Mathew (Tan Peng Chin & Partners)
• Citation: [1999] SGHC 126
• Defendant Counsel: Christopher Chuah and Lawrence Tan (Drew & Napier)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Exclusion of asset,Matrimonial assets,No evidence of market value of HDB flat before court,Family Law,Circumstances under which matrimonial assets may be excluded from division,Division of matrimonial assets,s 112 Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed),Whether court correct in excluding insignificant asset from division,Whether court correct in ordering division without first ascertaining true market value,Division of matrimonial home

:This is an appeal from the Family Court from a hearing on custody of children, maintenance and the division of matrimonial assets following the dissolution of a marriage.

The parties were married in 1981 and divorced in 1998. Before the ancillary matters came on for hearing the parties came to an agreement on the custody of the children, and a consent order was made. The court also made orders regarding maintenance from which there is no appeal.

The appeal by the husband is against the District Judge`s orders that

The matrimonial property at Block 408 Jurong West St 42 [num ]08-683 shall be sold on the open market within six months of the order made herein and the proceeds of sale, after deducting all costs and expenses of sale, shall be divided 40% to the petitioner (the wife) and 60% to the respondent (the husband). The parties are to refund their respective Central Provident Fund accounts with the required amounts from their share of the sale proceeds.The respondent shall have no claim to the petitioner`s beauty salon business.

Each party shall retain their respective bank account balances, Central Provident Fund account balances and shares held in their own names without any claim from the other party.

The District Judge found the matrimonial assets available for division to be

(a) the matrimonial home which was an HDB flat at Blk 408 Jurong West St 42 [num ]08-683,

(b) the husband`s CPF moneys amounting to $48,559.50 as at 7 October 1997,

(c) the wife`s CPF moneys amounting to $4,636.52 as at 18 Dec 1996,

(d) the hair salon business known as `Skill Cut Saloon` operated by the wife as a sole proprietor,

(e) the husband`s savings of $9,183.93 in POSB and $11,672.46 in DBS totalling $20,856.39 in or around April 1998,

(f) the wife`s savings of $82,022.20 in DBS and $39,849.13 in OCBC as at 30 June 1997 totalling $121,871.33,

(g) the husband`s 14,000 shares in Singapore Technology Ltd,

(h) the wife`s shares in several Malaysian and Singapore public listed companies as disclosed in the statement of account from the Central Depository (Pte) Ltd as at 30 June 1997 exhibited in p 13 of her affidavit filed on 11 August 1998.

(Items (b) and (c) are the amounts in the parties` CPF ordinary accounts, which do not include sums withdrawn for the purchase of the matrimonial home.)

Section 112 of the Women`s Charter

Before I examine the orders under appeal, it is useful to keep in mind the assets that should be considered and the factors to be taken into account in a division, and whether the assets should be divided individually or collectively. Under s 112, every matrimonial asset as defined in s 112(10) is liable to division pursuant to s 112(1), but this is qualified. Parties can agree that specific assets be excluded from division if they have come to their own arrangements. They may leave out others by not identifying them as assets to be considered for division even when no arrangements are made for their division. Identified assets may be excluded from consideration under the de minimis rule, where their values are insignificant by themselves, or in context of the total value of the matrimonial assets.

Although s 112 has abandoned the distinction in the repealed s 106 between assets acquired by the joint efforts of the parties and that acquired by the sole effort of one party, the contribution made by each party in the acquisition, improvement or maintenance of an asset remains a relevant factor under s 112(2)(a). This allows for different assets, eg matrimonial homes, business interests, share portfolios to be considered separately. This also gives a court flexibility to order divisions in a manner that is just and equitable in the circumstances of a case.

The matrimonial home

The matrimonial home was purchased in 1984 in the names of both parties. They made withdrawals from their CPF accounts to pay for the property, the wife withdrawing $6,781 and the husband withdrawing $35,600. The husband also claimed that he paid $42,000 in cash to discharge a housing loan taken for the acquisition, but produced evidence of repayment of $33,937.

In coming to her decision on the division of the matrimonial home the District Judge noted

I had no evidence of its market value but since it had been

...