VNU v VNV

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Jason Gabriel Chiang
• Judgment Date: 24 December 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] SGFC 111
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: FC/D 2024 of 2019 (HCF/DCA 86 of 2020)
• Year: 2020
• Published date: 05 January 2021
• Hearing Date: 14 September 2020,19 August 2020
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Teo Choo Kee (CK Teo & Co.)
• Defendant Counsel: Defendant-in-Person
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Women's Charter,Matrimonial assets,Division,Matrimonial Home,Central Provident Fund,Maintenance of Wife,Maintenance of Child
• Citation: [2020] SGFC 111

District Judge Jason Gabriel Chiang:

This case involved a dispute between a local 68-year old husband and a 36-year old Vietnamese wife over the ancillary matter issues of division of matrimonial assets as well as spousal and children maintenance in divorce. During the course of the hearings for the matter, significant arguments were raised including issues relating to the assessment of the pool of matrimonial assets, particularly in relation to purported premarital CPF monies, and the issue of the matrimonial home.

On 14 September 2020, I ordered that the Wife was entitled to 35% of the matrimonial assets and the Husband was entitled to the remaining 65%. As parties had confirmed that they were seeking the orders to only apply to the division of the Matrimonial Flat, I ordered that it be sold. Factoring the other matrimonial assets held by parties, the Wife was awarded 40% of the nett sale proceeds of the Matrimonial Flat, while the Husband got the remaining 60%. I further ordered that there be no maintenance for the Wife but that the Husband bears 75% of the reasonable expenses for the Children. After factoring that they would be paying for the Children while they are under their respectively care and control, this effectively amounted to the monthly sum of S$657.50 for the Husband’s payments for the maintenance of the Children. This maintenance sum comprised of monthly payment of S$320 (i.e. S$160 for each child) and a further proportionate sharing of the Children’s school fees, school textbooks, school uniforms, school shoes, telephone charges and medical fees on a reimbursement basis.

On 24 September 2020, the Husband being dissatisfied with my decision, filed an Appeal against my orders. The full grounds of my decision are set out below.

Facts The parties

The Plaintiff/Wife (the “Wife”) and the Defendant/Husband (the “Husband”) married on 9 April 2003. At that point in time the Wife was Vietnamese, but subsequent to marriage the Husband sponsored the Wife for Singapore Citizenship, which was granted in June 2006.

The Husband was a widower who had two (2) sons at the time of marriage: one who was in Junior College and another was studying in the University at that time. The Wife was merely 19 years old when she married the Husband and relocated from Vietnam to Singapore.

Background to the dispute

The Wife first filed for divorce against the Husband sometime in 2009 but decided to withdraw this sometime in 2010.

The Wife then filed for divorce for a 2nd time on 2 May 2019. After mediation, parties proceeded for an uncontested divorce hearing on the grounds of divorce. Parties also agreed to the Joint Custody of their two (2) children, a boy aged 16 (the “Son”) and a girl aged 15 (the “Daughter”) (collectively referred to as the “Children”), as well as shared care and control of the Children. Under this shared care and control, the Wife would have the Children from Mondays after school to Fridays before school and the Husband would have the Children from Fridays after school to Mondays before school.

On 18 November 2019, Interim Judgment, FC/IJ 5411/2019, was thus ordered on the basis of four (4) years’ separation and on the agreed terms relating to the custody and care and control of the Children. Parties claimed to have maintained separate households since 2015. However, it is noteworthy that, at the time of the hearings, parties were still residing at the Matrimonial Flat, albeit in separate rooms since then to the time of the Ancillary Matters hearings. The Wife alleged that she would only share meals with the Husband for the purposes of the Children, and besides that they maintained separate households.

For the Ancillary Matters, the Wife was represented by legal counsel, but the Husband was a litigant in person. The matter was heard over two half-day hearings on 19 August 2020 and 14 September 2020. At the 1st Hearing, I confirmed with the Husband that he did not have legal counsel and that he did not wish to be represented by a lawyer. Be that as it may, the Husband was able to present case law and make legal submissions for his case.

Parties had only filed two (2) rounds of affidavits for the ancillary matters. Neither side formally applied for discovery or interrogatories by summons against the other party. The Husband submitted his 1st set of written submissions (“Husband’s 1st Submissions”), checklist and ancillary matters fact and position sheet on 11 August 2020. The Wife filed her 1st set of Written Submissions (“Wife’s 1st Submissions”) on 12 August 2020, with a further bundle of authorities.

On 14 August 2020, the Wife’s counsel requested that the Wife be granted leave to be present for the hearing. On 17 August 2020, the Husband replied that he was in agreement with this. In the circumstances, leave was granted for the Wife to be in attendance for the hearings.

A day before the hearing (i.e. 18 August 2020), the Wife filed a 6-page Reply Submissions to the Husband’s Submissions (“Wife’s Reply Submissions”) and a further bundle of authorities. The Husband confirmed that he had received the Wife’s Reply Submissions and got to review this before the hearing. At the 1st half-day hearing on 19 August 2020, the Husband belatedly tried to admit further documents, such as a CDP Statement, a hospital medical bill, a message from the Wife to the Husband and a google translation of the message. I allowed the admission of the CDP Statement, as there had been allegations that the Husband has not made full and frank disclosure in this regard. The other documents were reviewed and assessed to be irrelevant for the proceedings.

After the 1st half-day hearing on 19 August 2020, I directed the Wife’s Counsel and the Husband to file supplementary submissions addressing the questions that I had raised during the hearing, which they were unable to adequately address on at that juncture. The directed supplementary submissions were filed on time by both sides on 9 September 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the “Wife’s Supplementary Submissions” and the “Husband’s Supplementary Submissions”). However, the Husband also filed a further reply submission prior to that on 3 September 2020 (the “Husband’s Reply Submissions”). On the 2nd half-day hearing on 14 September 2020, the Husband belatedly presented a new authority of TZQ v TZR [2019] SGHCF 3 (“TZQ v TZR”). I heard further arguments from both parties on this and other outstanding issues that parties had not adequately addressed in the Supplementary submissions.

Having considered all this, I delivered my decision at the close of the 2nd half-day hearing on 14 September 2020 that:- the Wife is entitled to 35% of the matrimonial assets, whereas the Husband is entitled to 65% of the matrimonial assets; the entitlement to the matrimonial assets translated into the Matrimonial Flat being sold on the open market within 6 months of the order or whatever further extension of time that Parties mutually agree to in writing. Parties shall have joint conduct of the sale of the Matrimonial Home; the nett sale proceeds of the Matrimonial Home shall be apportioned in the ratio of 40% to the Wife and 60% to the Husband. Each party shall utilize their shares of the nett sale proceeds of the Matrimonial Home to refund their CPF monies withdrawn for the purchase of the Matrimonial Home plus accrued interest; the Husband shall be at liberty to buy-over the Wife’s share of the Matrimonial Home at an agreed price or at market rate; 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; Parties shall retain all other assets in their own names. Parties shall have no future claims in relation to such assets; there shall be no maintenance for the Wife or the Husband; on the basis of parties having shared care and control as stated in FC/IJ 5411/2019, the Husband shall pay to the Wife a sum of S$320 for the household maintenance of the Children (i.e. S$160 per child per month). The Parties shall maintain the Children when they are within their care and control. The above-mentioned maintenance is to be paid on or before the 1st day of each month with effect from this order and is to be deposited into the Wife’s bank account. the Wife and the Husband shall further share the costs of the Children’s school fees, school textbooks, school uniforms, school shoes, telephone charges and medical fees in the following proportions of 75% being borne by the Husband and 25% being borne by the Wife. This is on a reimbursement basis within 7 days upon provision of receipts by the paying party to the other party with payments being made into Parties’ respective bank accounts. no order as to costs; and liberty to apply.

The parties’ cases

In relation to the division of matrimonial assets, both parties agreed that that the Court should take into account all the matrimonial assets but that the division should only be applied to the Matrimonial Flat. However, there was dispute over the value of the Matrimonial Flat, and whether certain assets or part thereof should be included in the pool of matrimonial assets. The Husband contended that certain CPF sums and traced assets from insurance proceeds should be excluded from the pool. There was no agreement on the direct and indirect financial contributions and both sides alleged that the other failed to make full and frank disclosure thus an adverse inference should be drawn against the other party. Separately the Husband also argued that the Court should clawback monies that the Wife purportedly dissipated for the Children’s bank accounts.

With regard to the maintenance...