Wong Lina v Wong Soon Cheng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 24 January 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] SGHCF 2
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: HCF/District Court of Appeal No 48 of 2017 and HCF/Summons No 325 of 2017
• Published date: 26 January 2018
• Year: 2018
• Hearing Date: 15 January 2018
• Plaintiff Counsel: Thirumurthy Ayernaar Pambayan (Murthy & Co)
• Defendant Counsel: Alagappan s/o Arunasalam (A Alagappan Law Corporation)
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Matrimonial assets,Division,Maintenance,Wife
• Citation: [2018] SGHCF 2

Choo Han Teck J:

The appellant is 46 years old and used to be a beautician before she married the respondent (who is 59 years old) in September 2003. The marriage broke down in 2014 and they were divorced in September 2016. The respondent works as an executive in an aviation manufacturing company. There were no children to the marriage.

The parties’ matrimonial home was a Housing and Development Board (“HDB”) flat. The value of the HDB flat was found to be $427,999.57 by the court below (see Lina Wong v Wong Soon Cheng [2017] SGFC 77 at [21]). Prior to their marriage, the respondent bought a house in Malaysia in the appellant’s sole name because she was Malaysian and he, as a Singaporean, was not permitted to own property valued below RM$250,000. The value of the Malaysian property is estimated by counsel to be RM$216,002.15, or S$68,555.11.

The court below ordered that the Malaysian property be sold in the open market and the net proceeds to go to the respondent, who had paid for the property entirely. The court below also ordered the respondent to pay the appellant a lump sum in maintenance calculated at $1,000 a month for three years, making a total of $36,000. The court below further awarded the appellant 5% of the matrimonial assets. The court below noted that the appellant’s counsel did not claim a share of the HDB flat, but the court nevertheless included the flat in the overall assets of the couple.

The respondent had amassed a sizeable collection of assets which both sides have referred to as “antiques”, despite there being no evidence that the items are genuine antiques. The respondent claims that the appellant has taken many of them, with a total value of $232,600. The respondent admits that he has some of the antiques in his possession, with a total value of $97,746.84. The appellant did not question the monetary value of the antiques given by the respondent until the present appeal. The appellant admitted that she has some of the antiques with her but claims that the antiques in her possession are only worth $17,330.

The court below accepted the evidence of the value of the antiques given by the respondent as the appellant did not challenge the evidence or provide any evidence of her own. Consequently, the court found that the value of matrimonial assets in the appellant’s possession to be $300,955.11.

The court below found on the above that the total value of the matrimonial assets was $826,701.52. The court below awarded the appellant 5% of the total matrimonial assets, but accepted that $300,955.11 worth of matrimonial assets were in the possession of the appellant.

The above finding and award is now challenged, and for the first time, counsel for the appellant has attempted to value some of the antiques. Counsel applied for leave to adduce evidence from the appellant’s valuer, appointed after the court below had handed down its decision. The appellant claims that she did not challenge the respondent’s valuation because she could not find a valuer. The appellant’s inability to find a valuer was stated, for the first time, in an affidavit in support of her application to adduce the evidence of Mr Lee Tat Hwang, an antique dealer. Mr Lee assessed the value of 17 items brought to him by the...