UJF v UJG

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Aedit Abdullah J
• Judgment Date: 18 January 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] SGHCF 1
• Plaintiff Counsel: Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam, Suang Wijaya and Teo Sher Min (Eugene Thuraisingam LLP)
• Docket Number: Divorce (Transferred) No 1342 of 2013
• Date: 18 January 2018
• Hearing Date: 04 July 2016,02 February 2017,07 July 2016,24 May 2017,22 February 2017,15 November 2016,05 July 2016
• Subject Matter: Maintenance,Family law,Family law -Matrimonial assets -Division,Former wife,Application of structured approach in ANJ v ANK
• Published date: 08 January 2019
• Defendant Counsel: Jagjit Singh Gill s/o Harchand Singh (Gurdip & Gill)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Citation: [2018] SGHCF 1
• Year: 2018

Aedit Abdullah J: Introduction

The Wife is the Plaintiff in these proceedings, and the Husband is the Defendant. A long period of cohabitation of about ten years or more was followed by a relatively short marriage of just under four years. As would be expected, the property interests of the parties were quite entangled and much of the dispute centred on the division of matrimonial assets. Separate civil proceedings were commenced, but in the end, the civil proceedings were not continued with, and the matter is therefore solely determined under Part X of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the Women’s Charter”).

Background

For convenience, the parties are referred to as Husband and Wife respectively, though their marriage has been dissolved.

The Husband, who is about 70 years old, has over the years, been involved in and owned a number of businesses. Before marrying the Wife, the Husband had been married twice. He has a total of four children from these earlier marriages.

The Wife, who is about 51 years old, has through her life, been involved in various lines of work, and in the various businesses run by the Husband. She has three children from a previous marriage.

The parties met either in 1996 or 1997. There was some issue about when the parties first cohabited, either 1997 or 1999. After cohabitation for more than a decade, the parties were married on 9 September 2009.¹ Interim judgment was granted on 30 July 2013,² less than four years after they were married.

By 1997, the Wife had started working at the Husband’s business. During the relationship and marriage, the Wife was involved in the businesses at various points, including a period in which the Husband was in prison after being convicted for an offence. At one point, some businesses were transferred from the Husband to the Wife. The effect of that transfer is in dispute between the parties, as is the level and significance of the Wife’s involvement in the Husband’s businesses.

Before and during the marriage, various properties were purchased by the Wife. The ownership of these properties was disputed by the Husband, who claimed interests in most, if not all, such properties, arguing that the funds for purchase came from him or his businesses. The Wife denied this, claiming that the money came from her savings or from her businesses.

A civil claim alleging beneficial interest in the various properties purchased by the Wife was commenced by the Husband (“the Civil Claim”). This overlapped with the divorce proceedings. In the interests of ensuring consistency and savings of time and cost, I directed that the hearing of the ancillaries be taken first; with evidence to be taken from both parties before the Civil Claim. Following this, and after consulting with the parties, I indicated that I would determine which assets constituted the matrimonial pool. The intention was to simplify proceedings so that parties could be clear as to which assets were subject to the matrimonial regime, and which were not, and fell to be determined solely by the general civil law.

After I reached my decision on the pool of matrimonial assets, the Civil Claim was discontinued save for a few outstanding matters.

Decision on the matrimonial asset pool

In my earlier decision on the matrimonial pool,³ I found that the parties’ matrimonial home within the meaning of s 112(10)(a)(i) of the Women’s Charter was the property at Park Villas Rise (“the Park Villas Property”). This property has already been sold and the sale proceeds of $1,836,182.97 are due to the Plaintiff.⁴

The properties acquired before the marriage and falling within s 112(10)(a)(ii) of the Women’s Charter were as follows: P1; P2; 2 Marina Boulevard, Level 15 (“The Sail, #15”); 2 Marina Boulevard, Level 64 (“The Sail, #64”); 2 Marina Boulevard, Level 35 (“The Sail, #35”); 7 Rodyk Street (“Watermark”); 6 Woodleigh Close, Level 1 (“8@Woodleigh, #01”); and Block 123 Yishun Street 11 (“Yishun St 11”).

The properties acquired during the marriage and falling within s 112(10)(b) of the Women’s Charter were as follows: 7 West Coast Walk (“The Parc”); 13 Leedon Heights (“Leedon Heights”); 222 Depot Road (“The Interlace 222”); 188 Depot Road (“The Interlace 188”); Block 45 Telok Blangah Drive (“Telok Blangah”); 65 Chestnut Avenue (“Eco Sanctuary”); and The Sky, Bukit Indah, Nusajaya, Tower B, Johor, Malaysia (“The Sky”).

Other than The Sky, the Husband was not the registered owner of any of the properties falling with the matrimonial pool whilst the Wife either had full ownership or co-ownership with someone other than the Husband.

Other assets included in the pool were as follows: the businesses (“the Businesses”); in the Husband’s name; B1; B2; and B3;⁵ in the Wife’s name; B4⁶; and B5⁷; cars, vans and motorcycles bought in the sole name of either of the parties (“the Vehicles”); the shares and proceeds of sale of shares by the Wife (“the Shares”); bank accounts in the sole name of either the Husband or the Wife (“the Bank Accounts”); and Central Provident Funds (“CPF”) funds in both the Husband’s and Wife’s account (“the CPF moneys”).

On the other hand, I found that the following properties were not part of the matrimonial pool (“the Non-Matrimonial Properties”): Block 113 Ang Mo Kio Avenue 4; two properties at Bright Hill Drive; 214 Serangoon North Avenue 4; 99 Robertson Quay; Taman Nusa Bestari, Skudai, Johor; Block 406 Ang Mo Kio Ave 6; and 6 Woodleigh Close, Level 2 (“8@Woodleigh, #02”). The effect of my decision was that the Non-Matrimonial Properties would have been the subject of the Civil Claim if it had been continued.

The Wife’s claim

The Wife argues that the withdrawal of the Civil Claim by the Husband has several implications. First, relying on the Wife’s evidence that she received about $686,416 from the proceeds of sale of the Non-Matrimonial Properties, the Wife argues that by withdrawing the Civil Claim, the Husband admits that at the very least, a sum of $686,416 of the Wife’s own money was available for the purchase of immovable properties that formed part of the matrimonial pool. Second, by withdrawing the Civil Claim, the Husband concedes that his factual grounds for alleging an equitable interest in the Non-Matrimonial Properties are without basis. In particular, the Husband admits, by withdrawing the Civil Claim, that his allegation that the moneys used to purchase the properties acquired in the Wife’s name were obtained from an alleged pool of funds belonging to the Businesses (“the Funds Pool”) without proper accounting are groundless. Third, given that the Husband relies on the very same factual grounds to allege that he has made direct contributions to the properties in the matrimonial pool held in the Wife’s name (ie, that the funds for purchasing these matrimonial assets were obtained from the Funds Pool), these allegations of fact must similarly be viewed with circumspection.⁸

In respect of the burden of proof, the Wife accepts that the court in matrimonial proceedings takes a rough and ready approximation where the documentary evidence falls short of establishing the direct contributions made by the parties. However, the Husband still bears a burden of proving any fact he relies on to support his contentions on direct contributions. The Husband’s entire case on direct contributions to properties held in the Wife’s name rests on his allegation that the Wife had a practice of drawing freely from the Funds Pool, without any form of accounting. This material fact was not proven.⁹ Whilst the Wife had made various withdrawals from the safe in which moneys belonging to the Funds Pool were deposited, these were meticulously recorded by her – it would be “odd and incongruent” for the Wife to record her withdrawals if she was indeed secretly siphoning the moneys from the Funds Pool.¹⁰

The Wife further contends that the Husband’s assertion regarding the Wife’s inability to fund the property acquisitions on her own, is inconsistent with the Wife’s evidence that in the early years of their relationship, she did have the financial means to make significant property purchases. It also fails to take into account the proceeds she received from the sale of the Non-Matrimonial Properties as well as her savings, income and lottery winnings over the years.¹¹

Given the presence of multiple classes of assets and varying contributions by the parties in the present case, the Wife proposes that the court should adopt “the classification methodology” in determining the respective contributions¹² and divide the various properties into separate categories. Under the Wife’s proposal, the first category (Category A) consists of properties registered in the Wife’s name which were acquired before the marriage and which have been substantially improved during the marriage, ie, falling within s 112(10)(a)(ii) of the Women’s Charter (see [11] above). The Wife submits that for these properties, only the increase in the value of the property between the date of marriage and the date of dissolution would be divisible and not the entire value of the property.¹³ The Wife submits that there is no evidence of direct contributions leading to increase in value of the properties in Category A from the Husband. In contrast, the Wife contributed directly because down-payments and mortgages were paid using moneys in the Wife’s bank accounts. Even if the Husband’s evidence that the funds for purchasing these properties came from the Funds Pool is preferred, the funds should be considered as a gift to the Wife which can still be counted as the Wife’s direct contributions. As for indirect contributions by the Husband, other than being a guarantor for the loans to purchase P1 and P2 and the paternal contributions to the household, there were no other indirect contributions – all investments...