District Judge Jason Gabriel Chiang:
Introduction
This divorce involved a long marriage of over 21 years. Both the Plaintiff Husband (the “Husband”) and the Defendant Wife (the “Wife”) were not well to do and past retirement age. The key dispute was over the division of matrimonial flat and lump sum maintenance for the Wife.
The Husband was legally aided, and while the Wife was not well to do, out of expediency, she had engaged private lawyers. On 25 November 2021, after all affidavits had been filed, the Wife appointed her 3rd set of legal counsel. The 1st round of Written Submissions was duly filed by both the Husband and Wife on 30 December 2022 (“1st Submissions”).
At the 1st hearing on 14 January 2022, the Wife sought leave of Court to file an affidavit to include certain documents which had been inadvertently missed out by the former solicitors. I allowed the filing of a short supplementary affidavit on these limited issues (the “Wife’s 3rd AM Affidavit”), subject to the issue of costs. I invited the Husband to file an affidavit in response, but the Husband elected not to do so. I, then, heard the oral arguments of the Husband and the Wife and identified a list of issues that Parties were to address in supplementary written submissions. I directed the Wife to file her supplemental affidavit by 21 January 2022 and for the further written submissions to be filed and exchanged on 25 February 2022 (the “2nd Submissions”). The Wife’s supplemental affidavit and Parties’ 2nd Submissions were duly filed on time.
At the 2nd hearing on 3 March 2022, I heard Parties’ rebuttals. Having taken that into consideration, I rendered my decision in Order of Court, FC/ORC 1306/2022 (“ORC 1306”) that: Division of Matrimonial Home The Husband’s share, rights and/or entitlement to the Matrimonial Home, a HDB in Toa Payoh, shall be transferred, other than by way of sale, to the Wife, whereby the Wife shall pay to the Husband the sum of S$103,789.69, within 6 months of Final Judgment and the costs and legal expenses arising from this transfer being borne by the Wife. The Husband shall refund his CPF monies (principal and interest accrued from the sum of S$103,789.69 received from the Wife). Should there be any shortfall, the Husband is not obliged to top up sums in cash. In the event that the Wife is unable to provide S$103,789.69 to the Husband for his share of the Matrimonial Home within 6 months from the Final Judgment, the Matrimonial Home shall be sold on the open market within 12 months from Final Judgment. Parties shall have joint conduct of the sale of the Matrimonial Home. The sale proceeds of the Matrimonial Home shall be distributed as follows: To pay the requisite CPF refunds, including accrued interest, in accordance with the applicable CPF laws and regulations to the Parties’ respective CPF accounts; To pay for the costs and expenses of the sale of the Matrimonial Home, including the real estate agent’s commission and legal conveyancing costs, if any; and The remainder of the sale proceeds after deducting (i) above shall be apportioned as follows: The Husband shall be entitled to a sum equivalent to 36.8% of the adjusted sale proceeds of the Matrimonial Home [i.e. the selling price of the Matrimonial Home after the deduction of (ii)]; and The Wife shall be entitled to a sum equivalent to 64.2% of the adjusted sale proceeds of the Matrimonial Home [i.e. the selling price of the Matrimonial Home after the deduction of (ii)]; For the avoidance of doubt, parties’ shares in (iii) would include the respective repaid CPF sums in (i) to their respective CPF Accounts; and Parties shall be at liberty to transfer sums from one party’s CPF Ordinary Account to the other party’s CPF Ordinary Account to give effect to this, if necessary. The orders made herein are subject to the Central Provident Fund Act (Cap. 36) (the “CPF Act”) and the subsidiary legislation made thereunder. The CPF Board shall give effect to the terms of this order in accordance with the provisions of the CPF Act and the subsidiary legislation made thereunder. The Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the Family Justice Courts under Section 31 of the Family Justice Act (Act 27 of 2014) is empowered to execute, sign, or indorse all necessary documents relating to matters contained in this order on behalf of either party should either party fail to do so within 7 days of a written request being made to the other party. Division of the matrimonial assets (aside from the matrimonial home) Parties shall retain all other assets in their own names. Parties shall have no future claims in relation to such assets. Maintenance for wife / incapacitated husband There shall be no monthly maintenance for the Defendant (as lump sum maintenance had been taken into consideration for the division of the Matrimonial Home). Costs No Order as to Costs. Liberty to Apply.
The Husband, being dissatisfied with my decision, filed an appeal, HCF/DCA 34/2022 on 15 March 2022 in relation to the whole of my decision given on 3 March 2022. The Husband obtained a provisional grant of legal aid for this appeal. The Wife, as the Respondent also obtained a provisional grant of legal aid and changed solicitors. In the circumstances, my full grounds of decision are set out below.
Facts
The parties
The Husband and Wife are both Singaporean, who were married on 8 February 2000. The 72-year-old Husband was formerly a welder for a construction company but transitioned to be an odd job worker, working mostly as a bus driver ferrying construction workers to various locations. The 66-year-old Wife was a part-time waitress, working only when there were events. This was the 2nd marriage for the Husband. He had previously acquired the matrimonial home, a HDB at Toa Payoh (the “Matrimonial Home”), with his former wife, but after that divorce, he was the sole owner of the Matrimonial Home. This was until he added the Wife as a joint owner on 14 July 2004. While they were only married in 2000, they had been cohabiting for a decade prior. Together they had 1 child, an adult 27-year-old son (the “Son”) born before Parties had wed.
Background to the dispute
Prior to divorce proceedings, on 13 June 2019, the Wife filed a Personal Protection Order (“PPO”) Complaint against the Husband. The Wife suffered fairly serious injuries from an alleged event of family violence committed by the Husband. At the 1st Mention on 25 June 2019, the Husband admitted to the allegations and consented to a PPO being granted to the Wife. On 30 September 2019, the Wife applied to vary the PPO to include a Domestic Exclusion Order (“DEO”) of the entire Matrimonial Home. After trial, on 10 January 2020, the Court ordered a DEO, but not for the entire Matrimonial Home, but only the Wife’s bedroom.
Separately, the Wife also filed an MSS Complaint seeking spousal maintenance on 18 September 2019. After trial, on 30 January 2020, the Court ordered for the Husband to pay a monthly sum of S$260 for the maintenance for the Wife.
On 20 November 2020, the Husband filed for divorce. After mediation, parties amended their pleadings and proceeded for an uncontested divorce hearing. Interim Judgment was granted in FC/IJ 2989/2021 on 29 June 2021 (“Interim Judgment”) on both the Husband’s amended claim and the Wife’s amended counterclaim, each claiming that the other had behaved in manner that it would be unreasonable for them to continue in the marriage with the other party. The ancillary matters were adjourned for further hearing.
Parties made requests for discovery and interrogatories and then made voluntary disclosure. Neither applied for a summons for either discovery or interrogatories. Parties filed their Affidavits of Assets and Means on 13 August 2021 (“AOMs”) and their reply Ancillary Matters Affidavits on 26 October 2021 (“AM Affidavits”). Neither sought leave to admit a 3rd AM Affidavit. However, as mentioned earlier in paragraphs 2 and 3 above, the Wife appointed new lawyers, her 3rd set of legal representation, on 25 November 2021, after all affidavits had been filed.
At the 1st hearing on 14 January 2022, the Wife belatedly requested for leave to file a 3rd AM Affidavit, even though the Wife had not indicated any such intention at the previous case conference on 1 December 2021. This was shortly after the appointment of her new lawyers. The Wife sought leave to admit a few documents on payments for HDB Upgrading of the Matrimonial Home, which was initially paid by the Husband through his CPF, but the Wife claimed that she had subsequently reimbursed him the amount of around S$4,900 some years later. The monies purportedly came from her UOB Bank Account, where she withdrew the remaining balance to pay this amount and subsequently closed the account. The Wife sought to admit 3 pages of scanned copies of her UOB Bank Passbook to evidence this withdrawal and closure of the Wife’s UOB Bank Account. The Wife purportedly providing this document to her previous solicitors, but it was left out of the documents previously disclosed in her affidavits. The Husband objected to this admission on the basis that this could have been provided earlier and that the Wife’s case should not be believed on this point. Having considered the matter, I allowed the Wife to file this affidavit, subject to issues of costs. I indicated that I would determine the weight that would be placed on such documents in my eventual decision and invited the Husband to file an affidavit in reply. The Husband indicated that it was not necessary as it would just be a denial.
During the course of the hearing, there were outstanding issues that needed to be addressed. As such, I had directed for the filing of the 2nd Submissions. Additionally, there were certain factual allegations that required the Wife to include further documents in her 3rd AM affidavit, which were allowed.
...
