TCP v TCQ

• Judge: Kimberly Scully
• Judgment Date: 08 May 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] SGFC 57
• Citation: [2015] SGFC 57
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 22 July 2015
• Docket Number: D1193 of 2011
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Abdul Rahman bin Mohd Hanipah [M/S I.R.B. Law LLP]
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Ng Thin Wah [M/S Timothy Ong, Lim & Partners]
• Subject Matter: Catch Words: Family Law,Ancillary Matters-Variation
• Hearing Date: 27 August 2014,25 September 2014

District Judge Kimberly Scully: Introduction – The Summons Applications

There were two summons applications before me for hearing: (1) Summons 30169 of 2013, which was the Plaintiff’s summons filed shortly after the sale of the flat, for a transfer of CPF monies in the Defendant’s CPF (Ordinary Account) to her own, subject to CPF rules and regulations (“the Plaintiff’s Summons”); and (2) Summons 6928 of 2014, which was the Defendant’s summons filed after the sale of the flat, to vary the Ancillary Matters Order of Court such that he would receive full refund of his CPF contributions as a result of the sale of the matrimonial flat (“the Defendant’s Summons”).

On 25 September 2014, I made the following orders: (1) an Order in Terms be granted for the Plaintiff’s Summons; and (2) that the Defendant’s Summons be dismissed with costs.

On 5 November 2014, the Defendant counsel filed a summons for leave to file an appeal against my orders, out of time. That application was granted by District Judge Ms Cheryl Koh on 10 February 2015 and on 13 February 2015, the Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal against all the above orders. I now provide the background and reasons for my orders.

Background and Counsels’ Arguments

In the course of the parties’ divorce proceedings, an Order of Court was made on 4 September 2012 dealing with the ancillary matters (“Ancillary Orders”). The relevant portions of the Ancillary Orders relating to the matrimonial flat are as follows:

“5.3.1 The matrimonial flat at xxx (“the Matrimonial Flat”), shall be sold in the open market, within six (6) months of the Final Judgment being granted, at a selling price that is not lower than the valuation price. The net sale proceeds, thereafter (less outstanding mortgage & cost of sale), shall be divided between the Plaintiff, the Defendant and the Third Party with the Plaintiff to receive 67%, 33% to the Third Party and with the Defendant to have no share in the proceeds;

5.3.2 The Plaintiff shall refund her CPF account with the financial contributions to matrimonial flat (with accrued interest thereon) from her own share of the net sale proceeds and there shall be no refund of the Defendant’s CPF contribution; […]”

The Ancillary Orders therefore neither contemplate a refund of the Defendant’s CPF contributions, nor provide the Defendant with a share in the sale proceeds. After the grant of the Ancillary Orders, it transpired that the CPF Board would not permit the sale of the matrimonial flat unless the CPF monies utilised by both parties towards the purchase of the matrimonial flat were refunded to their respective CPF accounts. Unable to secure the Defendant’s co-operation despite numerous attempts to do so, and to avoid defaulting on the completion of the sale, the Plaintiff decided to refund the Defendant’s CPF account for him, so that the sale may proceed without further delay. As such, the Plaintiff’s Summons sought a refund of the same amount that had been refunded to the Defendant’s Ordinary Account during the course of completing the sale of the matrimonial flat.

A few months after the Plaintiff’s Summons had been commenced, the Defendant filed the Defendant’s Summons, to retain the full refund to his CPF account. From the Defendant’s affidavits and Defendant Counsel’s oral submissions, the arguments were as follows, that: (i) the Defendant Counsel has acted for other parties in other divorce cases, and in each case, even when the other party is absent from proceedings, the court in dividing the matrimonial flat always minimally orders the refund of that party’s CPF monies contributed to the matrimonial flat¹; (ii) the only fair order to be made is that the Defendant receives a full CPF refund as it would be unjust to him for the Plaintiff’s summons to succeed²; (iii) the Defendant does not read or understand English and that is why he did not open any of the court’s numerous notices to him to attend court or the final hearing³ ; (iv) during the divorce proceedings, the parties had agreed he would obtain the refund of his CPF...