TJN v TJO

• Judge: Suzanne Chin
• Judgment Date: 07 January 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2015] SGFC 161
• Citation: [2015] SGFC 161
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 14 January 2016
• Docket Number: D5254 of 2014
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Michael Han with Mr Desmund Lim (Hoh Law Corporation)
• Defendant Counsel: Ms Rachel Gan with Mr Ethan Liew and Mr Victor Lim (Legal Aid Bureau)
• Subject Matter: Ancillary Matters Division of matrimonial property Wife maintenance
• Hearing Date: 15 October 2015,24 November 2015

District Judge Suzanne Chin: Background Introduction

This is my judgement in respect of ancillary orders made in these divorce proceedings between the Plaintiff wife and the Defendant husband. After hearing from the parties, I made orders on the issues of division of matrimonial property and maintenance. The husband, being dissatisfied with my order on the division of matrimonial property, has filed an appeal on the 1 December 2015.

Background

The parties were married on 28 November 1973 and Interim Judgement for divorce was granted on 3 February 2015 on the basis of four years separation. During the marriage, there were periods when the husband was away from the matrimonial home for drug rehabilitation or was in prison. The parties eventually separated in August 2015. While on paper, this was a very long marriage which had lasted for 42 years, it was not disputed that the de facto length of the marriage was approximately 32 years.

The Plaintiff wife (“Wife”) is 61 years old and was at the time of hearing unemployed while the Husband is 63 years old and works as an odd job labourer. They have 4 children, all of whom are over the age of 21.

Division of the Matrimonial Pool Position of each party

The wife was asking for the matrimonial flat to be sold and after deduction of all costs and expenses for the net proceeds to be retained solely by her. The husband on the other hand was asking for 45% of the net sale proceeds of the matrimonial flat. Both parties wanted to retain their own assets.

The Law

The duty of the court in the division of matrimonial assets is to consider all the circumstances of the case including the following factors as provided in section 112(2) of the Women’s Charter (“the Charter”): The extent of the contributions made by each party in money, property or work towards the acquiring, improving or maintaining of the matrimonial assets; Any debt owing or obligation incurred or undertaken by either party for their joint benefit or for the benefit of any child of the marriage; The needs of the children (if any) of the marriage; The extent of the contributions made by each party to the welfare of the family, including looking after the home or caring for the family or any aged or infirm relative or dependant of either party; Any agreement between the parties with respect to the ownership and division of the matrimonial assets made in contemplation of divorce; Any period of rent-free occupation or other benefit enjoyed by one party in the matrimonial home to the exclusion of the other party; The giving of assistance or support by one party to the other (whether or not of a material kind), including the giving of assistance or support which aids the other party in carrying on of his or her occupation or business; and The matters referred to in s 114(1) so far as they are relevant.

In exercising its powers, the court would adopt a broad brush approach to the issue and make a determination on the basis of what the court considers as a just and equitable division (Lim Choon Lai v Chew Kim Heng [2001] 3 SLR 225) but a structured approach is not inconsistent with the broad brush approach (ARL v ARM [2015] SGHC 61 at [12]).

In the recent case of AVM v AWH [2015] SGHC 194, the decision of the Court of Appeal in ANJ v ANK [2015] SGCA 34 was referred to and the approach of the Court of Appeal summarised into the following four-step approach in determining the division of assets: “(a) First, derive a ratio which represents the relationship between the direct financial contributions of each party towards the acquisition or improvement of matrimonial assets. Where all necessary evidence is available, this is an arithmetical exercise. Where all necessary evidence is not available, the court must use a broad brush to make approximations based on the available documentary evidence and on the parties’ own evidence...