CourtCourt of Three Judges (Singapore)
Judgment Date03 February 2009
Date03 February 2009
Docket NumberCivil Appeals Nos 93 and 94 of 2007

[2009] SGCA 6

Court of Appeal

Chan Sek Keong CJ


Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA


V K Rajah JA

Civil Appeals Nos 93 and 94 of 2007

TR and another appeal

Foo Siew Fong and Loh Wern Sze Nicole (Harry Elias Partnership) for the appellant in Civil Appeal No 93 of 2007 and the respondent in Civil Appeal No 94 of 2007

Quek Mong Hua, Tan Siew Kim and Yip Luyang Elena (Lee & Lee) for the respondent in Civil Appeal No 93 of 2007 and the appellant in Civil Appeal No 94 of 2007.

Bennett v Bennett [1952] 1 KB 249 (refd)

Brodie v Brodie [1917] P 271 (refd)

Brooks v Burns Philp Trustee Co Ltd (1969) 121 CLR 432 (refd)

Chan Yeong Keay v Yeo Mei Ling [1994] 2 SLR (R) 133; [1994] 2 SLR 541 (refd)

Chia Hock Hua v Chong Choo Je [1994] 3 SLR (R) 159; [1995] 1 SLR 380 (refd)

Crossley v Crossley [2008] 1 FLR 1467 (folld)

Edgar v Edgar (1981) 2 FLR 19 (refd)

Hyman v Hyman [1929] AC 601 (refd)

J v V (Disclosure: Offshore Corporations) [2004] 1 FLR 1042 (refd)

K v K (Ancillary Relief: Prenuptial Agreement) [2003] 1 FLR 120 (refd)

Kwong Sin Hwa v Lau Lee Yen [1993] 1 SLR (R) 90; [1993] 1 SLR 457 (refd)

Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 (refd)

M v M (Prenuptial Agreement) [2002] 1 FLR 654 (refd)

MacLeod v MacLeod [2008] UKPC 64 (refd)

N v N (Jurisdiction: Pre-nuptial Agreement) [1999] 2 FLR 745 (refd)

NG v KR (Pre-nuptial contract) [2008] EWHC 1532 (refd)

Tan Lan Eng v Lim Swee Eng [1993] 3 SLR (R) 347; [1994] 1 SLR 65 (refd)

Tan Siew Eng v Ng Meng Hin [2003] 3 SLR (R) 474; [2003] 3 SLR 474 (refd)

Wee Ah Lian v Teo Siak Weng [1992] 1 SLR (R) 347; [1992] 1 SLR 688 (refd)

Wong Kam Fong Anne v Ang Ann Liang [1992] 3 SLR (R) 902; [1993] 2 SLR 192 (refd)

Wyatt-Jones v Goldsmith (Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 28 June 2000, transcript available on Lexis) (refd)

Application of English Law Act (Cap 7A, 1994 Rev Ed)s 3 (2) (consd);s 3

Women's Charter (Cap 353,1985 Rev Ed)s 106

Women's Charter (Cap 353,1997 Rev Ed)ss 112 (1), 112 (2) (e), 113, 116, 129, 132 (consd);ss 112,112 (2), 119,125 (2), 127

Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (c 18) (UK)ss 25, 25 (2) (g)

Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 (c 49) (UK)

Conflict of Laws–Choice of law–Family–Domicile–Law governing validity of prenuptial agreements–Prenuptial agreement executed in Netherlands by foreigners which provided there was to be no community of property–Whether domicile of parties relevant in determining governing law for validity of prenuptial agreement–Which law governed validity of prenuptial agreement–Whether clause in prenuptial agreement stipulating that marital property regime between parties to be governed by Dutch law could be construed as express choice of law clause in favour of Dutch law or clause supporting implied choice of Dutch law as governing law of agreement–Whether prenuptial agreement valid under Dutch law–Whether foreign prenuptial agreements which were valid by their proper law had to comply with general principles of Singapore common law of contract–Family Law–Custody–Care and control–Maintenance–Child–Wife–Matrimonial assets–Division–Prenuptial agreements–Types of marital agreements–Types of prenuptial agreements–Legal status of prenuptial agreements in Singapore–Prenuptial agreement executed in Netherlands by foreigners which provided there was to be no community of property–Whether prenuptial agreement was valid under Dutch law–What weight should be given to prenuptial agreement by court in exercising its power under s 112 Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed) for division of matrimonial assets–Whether prenuptial agreement should be given significant weight given that it was entered into by foreign nationals and governed by (as well as was valid according to) foreign law

A Dutch citizen (“the Husband”) and a Swedish citizen (“the Wife”) married in the Netherlands on 13 September 1991. Together with their three children, the couple first came to live in Singapore in 1997. The marriage subsequently broke down and the Wife filed for divorce in Singapore in 2004. The divorce petition was uncontested and a decreenisi was granted on 19 April 2005. The parties then applied to the court for the ancillary matters to be decided. Prior to their marriage in the Netherlands, the couple executed before a Dutch civil law notary on 26 August 1991 a prenuptial agreement which, stated, inter alia, that there was to be no community of property (“the Agreement”).

The High Court judge (“the Judge”) ordered that both the Husband and the Wife were to have joint custody of the Children, but the Wife was to have care and control of all three children. The Husband was also ordered to pay $1,200 a month for the maintenance of each child and a lump sum of $150,000 for the Wife's maintenance. The Judge further upheld - and gave effect to - the Agreement and made no order as to the division of matrimonial assets.

The Wife appealed against the quantum for the maintenance of the Children and the making of no order as to the division of assets. The Husband appealed against the order for care and control of the Children and the maintenance orders for the Children and the Wife. In respect of the Agreement, the Wife argued that the Agreement was invalid or that it was no longer binding because it had been abandoned by the parties.

Held, varying the orders of the Judge:

(1) The circumstances not just of the parents but those ofall three children (not just each of them in isolation) had to be taken into account in deciding custody, care and control of the Children. The cross-accusations of irresponsible behaviour and infidelity by both parties, even if true, did not affect the parties' parental love for the Children. Since the Husband planned to return to the Netherlands while the Wife planned to remain in Singapore, the Children would be living far away from one parent and joint custody of the Children would be appropriate. The second daughter was studying in a Singapore school and had known no other home except Singapore and the first daughter required constant care and attention due to her disability. The two daughters' interests would thus be best served if they were cared for by their mother in Singapore. This was not a decision indicating whether they should be acculturated as Dutch or otherwise. Such a major lifestyle decision had to be taken by both parents as joint custodians. Although the son had expressed his wish to study in the Netherlands, it would be best, having regard to all the circumstances, that he remain in Singapore with the Wife, at least until the Husband complied with the orders made with respect of the Children's maintenance: at [13], [15] to [18] and [20].

(2) The Husband drew a very high salary when he first came to Singapore as a vice-president of an international management consultancy, but subsequently left this job and ran his own consultancy business. The $150,000 lump sum maintenance for the Wife ordered by the Judge was not an unreasonable sum. However, in consideration of the fact that the Husband was clearly not as well-off as he used to be, the sum should be paid in instalments: at [21] and [24].

(3) Given that the Wife did not produce any evidence of the Husband's present income and it was evident that the Husband's financial circumstances had materially deteriorated from the time when he was working at the international management consultancy, the maintenance for the Children would remain at $1,200 a month for each child. The trust fund that the Husband admitted that he had set up for the Children in Mauritius (“the ALLIJU Trust”) after the decree nisi had been granted was a naked attempt to present the Wife and the courts afait accompli in respect of the issues of maintenance and the distribution of the matrimonial assets. Accordingly, the Husband was to pay a sum equivalent to that in the ALLIJU Trust (measured in Singapore dollars) into an account in a Singapore bank, which could be used by either parent for the benefit of the Children: at [26] and [27].

(4) The validity of a contract, including marital property agreements, was governed by its proper law and the proper law was determined by (in order of descending priority): (a) the express choice of the parties; (b) the implied choice of the parties; and (c) in the absence of any express or implied choice of law, by ascertaining the system of law with which the agreement had the closest and most real connection, which was presumed to be the law of the matrimonial domicile unless rebutted. The applicable clause in the Agreement did not expressly state that the Agreement itself was to be governed by Dutch law, but it referred, literally, to the marital property regime of the marriage being governed by that law. Given that the Agreement as a whole was concerned solely with the marital proprietary relations of the parties, there was, in substance, no meaningful distinction between the Agreement and the marital property regime. In the special circumstances of the case, the clause could be read either as an express choice of law clause in favour of Dutch law, or as a clause supporting an implied choice of Dutch law. The validity of the Agreement thus depended on its status under Dutch law: at [32] to [34].

(5) The Agreement was valid under Dutch law. The Wife did not adduce, beyond her bare assertions, any evidence to prove that the Agreement had not been explained to her. Some bad faith on the Husband's part could perhaps have been inferred if the terms of the Agreement had been manifestly in his favour and to her detriment, but this was not the case. In fact, the Agreement contained a term unequivocally in favour of the Wife, specifying that the Husband was to pay the Wife a certain sum of money, so long as one or more of the Children was under the age of five and the Wife was not in the position to enjoy pension rights of her own. Such a term was inconsistent with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Lian Hwee Choo Phebe v Tan Seng Ong
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 3 July 2013
    ...Singapore Branch v Motorola Electronics Pte Ltd [2011] 2 SLR 63 (distd) Foo Jong Peng v Phua Kiah Mai [2012] 4 SLR 1267 (refd) TQ v TR [2009] 2 SLR (R) 961; [2009] 2 SLR 961 (folld) Wan Lai Cheng v Quek Seow Kee [2012] 4 SLR 405 (folld) Wong Kam Fong Anne v Ang Ann Liang [1992] 3 SLR (R) 90......
  • Surindar Singh s/o Jaswant Singh v Sita Jaswant Kaur
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 7 July 2014
    ...legal requirements of the common law of contract because such agreements are contracts to begin with (see TQ v TR and another appeal [2009] 2 SLR(R) 961 (“TQ v TR”) at [94]). Here, we have a contract for a legal purpose entered into by two mentally capable adults, legally advised, after lon......
  • Aoo v Aon
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 29 September 2011
    ...WLR 185 (folld) Su Sh-Hsyu v Wee Yue Chew [2007] 3 SLR (R) 673; [2007] 3 SLR 673 (folld) Tommey v Tommey [1983] Fam 15 (folld) TQ v TR [2009] 2 SLR (R) 961; [2009] 2 SLR 961 (folld) Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man [2006] 2 SLR (R) 117; [2006] 2 SLR 117 (refd) Wellmix O......
  • AQN v AQO
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 27 January 2015
    ...are competent to determine and apply foreign law. The Singapore courts have done so on several occasions. TQ v TR and another appeal [2009] 2 SLR(R) 961 (“TQ v TR”) is one such example. In TQ v TR, the Singapore Court of Appeal construed the terms of a Dutch prenuptial agreement and went on......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT