TQT v TQU
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Choo Han Teck J |
| Judgment Date | 15 November 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] SGHCF 17 |
| Court | High Court (Singapore) |
| Docket Number | HCF/Divorce (Transferred) No 793 of 2015 |
| Published date | 05 March 2020 |
| Year | 2018 |
| Hearing Date | 24 September 2018 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | The plaintiff in-person |
| Defendant Counsel | William Ong Meng Hwa (Alpha Law LLC) |
| Subject Matter | Family Law,Matrimonial assets,Division |
| Citation | [2018] SGHCF 17 |
The plaintiff married the defendant on 6 March 1990 and they have three children, a daughter who is 25 years old, a son who is 21 and another son who will be 21 on 29 January next year. The plaintiff is 55 years old, and the defendant is 56. After two unsuccessful attempts, the plaintiff finally obtained a divorce on 24 March 2016, on the ground that she and the defendant had separated and lived apart since 28 June 2010.
The defendant was practising as a doctor in his own clinic during the marriage. The plaintiff is an accountant by training but she worked in the defendant’s clinic after she married him. Both of them are now unemployed, after the defendant closed his clinic when divorce proceedings began. The present proceedings before me concerns the division of their matrimonial assets and the custody of the younger son. All three children have been living with the defendant since custody was granted to him. They are happy with this arrangement. Having interviewed the daughter and the younger son, I am of the view that the interim custody order should continue so far as the youngest child is concerned since he is the only one below the age of 21, and even he will be 21 in about three months’ time. There will be no custody orders for the adult children.
The issue of division of assets is the more difficult one. The main problem is that the defendant claims that much of the assets acquired were from money left to him by his parents, but there is no evidence of what his inheritance was. His father died in 1989 and his mother 2000. The defendant’s mother’s estate thus might have included inheritance from his father, but the defendant had produced no evidence of the value of either his father’s estate or his mother’s. His counsel, Mr Ong, stated that it was a long time ago and no evidence of the precise amount was available. Mr Ong submitted that the defendant received 45% of his mother’s estate, but no evidence of the value of that 45% was adduced. Despite attempts by the court to investigate, counsel says that it would be an impossible task as the defendant is unable to provide the specific figures. Mr Ong submitted that the defendant received $315,000 in 1985 as a gift; $49,635.96 worth of shares in the HSBC Bank, $44,526 in shares in Straits Trading; $9,300 in OCBC shares.
Several properties were purchased in the course of the marriage. The initial matrimonial home was in Pender Court, a property purchased in March 1986 for $315,000. They then bought a Housing and Development Board (“HDB”) shop at Bukit Batok for $850,099.88 which they used as a clinic for the defendant as well as a shop selling bubble tea (managed by the plaintiff). They moved to 74 Eng Kong Place in October 1995, a house bought for $1,820,000. When the marriage broke up, the defendant and the children moved to 39 Lorong Pisang Raja, purchased for $3,260,000. There were several properties overseas:
Mr Ong conceded that there is no dispute that these properties were purchased but he submitted that they were largely purchased from the defendant’s inherited money. The plaintiff says that she has no details of the foreign properties save that the defendant bought them. She does not have details even of those properties in her name because they were acquired by the defendant, and all documents were sent to him. The husband has been singularly unhelpful in denying that he still has any of the properties previously bought in his own name, and at the same time, refusing to provide any account beyond the bare assertion that he no longer owns any of them. For convenience, I will set out the assets in a consolidated table.
| | | |
| | ||
| | | |
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
TQU v TQT
...be awarded 67% of the matrimonial assets.10 The parties appeared before the Judge on 24 September 2018. In his decision in TQT v TQU [2018] SGHCF 17 (“GD”) on 15 November 2018, the Judge concluded that all the assets currently owned by the parties came from the Clinic, which was a “joint ma......