Wong Phui Lun Joseph v Yeoh Loon Goit

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chua F A J
• Judgment Date: 03 February 1978
• Neutral Citation: [1978] SGHC 7
• Docket Number: Divorce Petition No 36 of 1976
• Date: 03 February 1978
• Year: 1978
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tan Kok Quan (Lee & Lee)
• Citation: [1978] SGHC 7
• Defendant Counsel: JD Grimberg (Drew & Napier)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether desire of respondent to continue with marriage material,Acquisition of domicile of choice,Whether fault of petitioner material,Separation,ss 80(1)(c), 82(1)(e), 82(2)(g) Women's Charter,Divorce,Facts indicating such acquisition,Family Law,Grounds of divorce,Conflict of Laws,Domicile

The petitioner, Joseph Wong Phui Lun, presented a petition for divorce to this court praying that his marriage to the respondent, Yeoh Loon Goit alias Yoa Hsiao Yu, may be dissolved under s 82(1)(e) of the Women`s Charter (Cap 47, 1970 Ed) on the ground that his wife has lived separately from him for a period of not less than seven years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition and is unlikely to be reconciled with him.

The parties were married on 24 December 1952, at the Registry of Marriages, Selangor, according to the provisions of the Civil Marriage Ordinance 1952, a law providing that or in contemplation of which this marriage is monogamous. At the date of the marriage the petitioner was a bachelor and the respondent a widow. Both the parties were born in Kuala Lumpur. There are six children of the marriage.

After the marriage the parties lived in Kuala Lumpur. About nine months after the marriage the petitioner left for England where he studied at Leeds University. Nine months later, after the birth of the first child, his wife joined him at Leeds. When he finished his university course in 1956 they moved and lived in London where he took his articleship and studied for the examination of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales. He successfully completed his examination in May 1959, and the parties returned to Kuala Lumpur sometime in December 1959. During the period they were in England three other children were born.

When they returned to Kuala Lumpur they first went to live with his sister for nine months. After that they moved and lived at No 2, 12/6 Petaling Jaya, Selangor, and later they moved to No 4, 12/6 Petaling Jaya. Both these houses were then owned by the wife. Between 1959 and 1963 two more children were born.

The petitioner first worked for Peat, Marwick & Mitchell in Kuala Lumpur, a firm of accountants. He worked there until 30 April 1964 when he left to set up his own practice Azman, Wong, Salleh & Co. The firm extended its business and on 1 July 1967 the firm started a joint partnership with Arthur Young & Co of New York and the petitioner became the managing partner of the joint company, Arthur Young, Azman, Wong, Salleh & Co with its office at the American International Assurance Building in Robinson Road, Singapore.

As managing partner of the joint partnership the petitioner said he had to build up an audit practice of international standard in Singapore and that it was necessary for him to live in Singapore. He continued to be a partner in Azman, Wong & Salleh until 30 September 1970 and until he sold his shares he continued his business in Kuala Lumpur.

He came to live in Singapore alone around June 1967, but he had go back to Kuala Lumpur once or twice a week. When he returned to Kuala Lumpur he stayed at the matrimonial home.

In 1964 or 1965 Poon Ah Moi (now the mistress of the petitioner) was employed by the petitioner to work in his Kuala Lumpur office. Poon Ah Moi is an accountant and a Singapore citizen. In 1967 she could not get an extension of her work permit and in November 1967, she was transferred to Singapore to work in the petitioner`s Singapore office. According to the petitioner, he and Poon Ah Moi decided to live together sometime in the first half of 1969 and to settle down in Singapore. He raised a bank loan to enable her to buy No 8 Jalan Harun, Singapore, where they went to live and are still living. According to the respondent she heard for the first time that her husband was having some sort of association with Poon Ah Moi in December 1966.

I have no doubt that the petitioner was having an affair with Poon Ah Moi before she was transferred to Singapore in November 1967.

The petitioner went to New York in late January 1968, to visit Arthur Young & Co. He was away for five weeks. When he came back to Singapore he stayed there for one week and then went back to Kuala Lumpur around 2 March 1968. According to the petitioner his wife was extremely angry and there was a quarrel and he was locked out of the bedroom and he had to pass the night with the children in the children`s room. The next morning he found that his wife had thrown his books and his clothings on the driveway. There was then a quarrel and according to him his wife abused him using very foul language and she called him `thick-faced` and said he had been `her gigolo before and even now (he) still stayed in her house.` She further said: "Don`t think that I want to you at all, you can scram and good riddance for good". He replied: "If this is what you want I am going away for good." He then took his clothes, important documents and books and put them in his car and drove away. He returned to Singapore late in the afternoon the next day. He then ceased staying at the matrimonial home. Thereafter he did go back to Kuala Lumpur once or twice a week to attend to his Kuala Lumpur business but he stayed with his sister whenever he was in Kuala Lumpur.

The wife, however, gave a different version of the quarrel. The petitioner did not write to her or the children when he was in New York and he did not tell her that he was returning. According to her, she first heard the news from the petitioner`s mistress who telephoned her from Singapore. She was greatly distressed when she heard that because he did not tell her himself. They had a quarrel when he arrived at the matrimonial home. During the quarrel he told her that he had another woman in Singapore. That night they were reconciled and he gave her a gold brooch which he had purchased from America. She spent that night with him and they had sexual intercourse. The next day he returned to Singapore. She drove him to the airport. She denied she threw his clothes and books on the driveway and she denied she abused him. She said that the petitioner returned to Kuala Lumpur on 5 and 16 March 1968. On 16 March 1968 he told her that he was going to Sabah and Hong Kong. After her husband`s departure for Sabah she received certain information about her husband and his mistress. She then telephoned the mistress at the petitioner`s Singapore office and told her not to break up the marriage. When her husband returned to Kuala Lumpur on 23 or 24 March 1968 he was very angry and scolded her for having telephoned his Singapore office and said he wanted a divorce. Her husband then left the matrimonial home permanently the following day.

I have no doubt that the petitioner`s version of what took place on 2 and 3 March 1968 is the true version. I find that the parties have lived separately since 3 March 1968.

On 16 June 1968 the petitioner presented a petition for divorce in Kuala Lumpur on the grounds that the respondent had treated him with...