VOG v VOH

• Judge: Christine Lee
• Judgment Date: 12 January 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] SGFC 1
• Citation: [2021] SGFC 1
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 21 January 2021
• Docket Number: Divorce No 4345 of 2017
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mrs Alice Tan with Mr Lim Jun Wei (M/S A C Fergusson Law Corporation)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Mohamed Niroze Idroos (M/S Niroze Idroos LLC)
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Division of Matrimonial Assets Maintenance for Plaintiff Husband
• Hearing Date: 04 March 2020,29 September 2020,03 April 2020,28 August 2020,09 June 2020

District Judge Christine Lee: Introduction

This case involved the Ancillary Matters hearing of the Plaintiff Husband’s divorce application in D4345/2017.

There were four hearing days and both Counsel agreed for my decision to be rendered in writing and sent to them by way of Registrar’s Notice (“RN”) which was issued on 29 September 2020.

Facts The Parties

The Plaintiff Husband (the Plaintiff) and Defendant Wife (the Defendant) married on 8 June 2004 in Singapore. They are both Singapore citizens and there were no children to the marriage. The marriage lasted nearly 13 years before the Plaintiff filed Writ of Divorce on 18 September 2017.

Interim Judgement (IJ) for the divorce proceedings was subsequently granted on 17 January 2018 based on both the Statement of Claim (Amendment No 2 dated 13 December 2017) and the Counterclaim (Amendment No 1 dated 18 December 2017) and the marriage was dissolved by reason of the unreasonable behaviour of both Parties.

Background to the dispute

As a preliminary issue, I noted that the Plaintiff had been declared as a person unable to make decisions for himself under the Mental Capacity Act (“MCA”). I also noted that the Plaintiff’s Deputies had filed medical reports obtained in November 2017, not long after the Plaintiff had filed the Writ of Divorce on 18 September 2017, for which an Order of Court was issued on 9 January 2018 appointing them as the Plaintiff’s Deputies.

I also noted that the Plaintiff had also signed (not the Plaintiff’s Deputies on his behalf) the Affidavit of Evidence in Chief on 19 December 2017 in support of the Request to Set Down this matter on an Uncontested Divorce basis on 21 December 2017 and that was the basis on which the IJ was granted on 17 January 2018.

I was therefore concerned that the Plaintiff’s Deputies’ claim on the Plaintiff’s behalf, for the division of the matrimonial assets was not consistent with the Statement of Claim which the Plaintiff had filed together with the Writ of Divorce on 18 September 2017, in which the Plaintiff only sought for an order under Prayer 7(b) that “Each Party was to retain all other assets held in their own names”.

I further noted that the Plaintiff’s Deputies were now seeking a division of the assets of both Parties, including assets which the Plaintiff’s Deputies were alleging that the Defendant had misappropriated from the Plaintiff. In this regard, the Plaintiff’s Deputies had based their claim on the fact that the Plaintiff had no mental capacity to manage his personal and financial affairs including his bank accounts, since 2010. This was seven years before the Plaintiff filed Writ of Divorce.

As such, I referred this matter back to the previous hearing Judge who had granted the Plaintiff’s Deputies the authority to act on the Plaintiff’s behalf in this divorce case, to seek clarification on whether the Plaintiff’s Deputies could pursue a division of the matrimonial assets on the Plaintiff’s behalf.

At the continued hearing on 3 April 2020, the Plaintiff's Counsel submitted that the previous Judge had confirmed that the Plaintiff’s Deputies’ had a general power to act on the Plaintiff’s behalf and that seeking a division of the matrimonial assets was in the Plaintiff’s interests and wishes.

As such, I granted leave to the Plaintiff’s Deputies to amend the Statement of Claim (Amendment No 2) specifically, to change Prayer 7(b) which stated that “Each Party is to retain all assets held in their own names” to “Seek a just and equitable division of the matrimonial assets”.

I noted that the Parties had filed the following Affidavits for the AM hearing: Plaintiff Husband: (i) Affidavit of Assets and Means (AOM) filed on 2 October 2019 and (ii) 2nd AM Affidavit filed on 31 January 2020. Defendant Wife: (i) Affidavit of Assets and Means (AOM) filed on 18 November 2019 (ii) 2nd AM Affidavit also filed on 31 January 2020. Written submissions were also submitted by both the Plaintiff's Counsel and the Defendant's Counsel on 26 February 2020.

I then proceeded to consider the list of assets that should go into the matrimonial pool to be divided and whether a departure from the first AM hearing date being 4 March 2020 was warranted, as this case was unusual in that the IJ date was more than two years ago, on 17 January 2018.

Following the issuance of my decision by RN on 29 September 2020, the Plaintiff’s Deputies filed Notice of Appeal on the Plaintiff’s behalf on 12 October 2020 regarding two parts of my decision namely, That the sum of $53,850.00, being the GE insurance pay out on 16 August 2011, were a legitimate use of the funds by the Defendant; and No maintenance shall be payable to the Plaintiff.

The Parties’ cases

There were 4 Ancillary Matters (AMs) that were in dispute before me as follows:

SN	SOC Para	Plaintiff Issue	CC Para	Defendant Issue
1.	7 (b)	Division of the Matrimonial Assets	NA	NIL
2.	7 (c)	Maintenance for the Plaintiff Husband	2 (b)	Maintenance for the Defendant Wife
3.	7 (d)	Costs to be paid by the Defendant	2 (c)	Costs to be paid by the Plaintiff
4.	7 (e)	Further or Other Relief	2 (d)	Further or Other Relief

Division of the Matrimonial Assets

Regarding the division of the Matrimonial Assets (“MAs”) the key disputed asset was the item titled “Undisclosed Savings”. The Plaintiff’s Counsel submitted that this asset should be added to the total pool of MAs to be divided in the sum of $332,446.85 comprising: Ex-gratia payment from Sony to the Plaintiff which was appropriated by the Defendant from the Plaintiff’s POSB account number xxx-xxx63-3 in the sum of $28,050; Rental proceeds from the Selegie Road matrimonial home in the sum of $158,400 from 2011 to 2016 (the matrimonial home had been sold in 2017 before the commencement of the divorce proceedings); GE insurance pay out in the sum of $53,850 (emphasis added this being the first item being appealed against); GE insurance pay out in the sum of $72,339.12; and Citibank Shares withdrawn from the joint OCBC Bank Account number xxx-x-xxx373 in the sum of $19,807.73.

The Plaintiff's Counsel submitted that the evidence for these Undisclosed Savings had been provided in the Defendant’s Discovery Affidavit. The Plaintiff's Counsel further submitted that there was unfair, unjust and wasteful dissipation of these monies by the Defendant and referred to the cases of AYR vs ARX [2016] 2 SLR 686 at paragraph 35 and AJR v AJS [2010] SGHC 199 at paragraph 6, 10 and 37 and to paragraphs 26 to 28 of their Written Submissions on this case law.

The Plaintiff's Counsel also submitted that in her replies on where these monies went, the Defendant was unable to prove that all these monies were used for the Plaintiff’s medical expenses as...