Yeo Gim Tong Michael v Tianzon

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
• Judge: Karthigesu JA
• Judgment Date: 26 March 1996
• Neutral Citation: [1996] SGCA 14
• Citation: [1996] SGCA 14
• Subject Matter: Matrimonial property,s 106 Women's Charter (Cap 353),Whether subject to division,Inter-spousal gifts,Premium to compensate for award of property to the other spouse,Assets acquired after breakdown of marriage,Whether correctly awarded,Family Law
• Plaintiff Counsel: Simon Tan (Allen & Gledhill)
• Defendant Counsel: Wong Chai Kin (Wong Chai Kin)
• Date: 26 March 1996
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 139 of 1995
• Published date: 19 September 2003

Cur Adv Vult

This appeal arose from the hearing of ancillary matters in the matrimonial proceedings between the wife, who was the petitioner, and the husband, the respondent, and once again concerns the vexed question of division of matrimonial assets under s 106 of the Women`s Charter (Cap 353). The matrimonial assets consisted mainly of the matrimonial home, the husband`s moneys in his account with the Central Provident Fund Board (CPF moneys) and his motor car. In dividing the assets between them the High Court awarded to the wife 50% of the total value of the matrimonial assets. The husband now appeals against this decision complaining that the amount awarded to the wife was in error and was excessive.

Brief facts

The parties were married on 31 August 1980 in the Philippines. The husband is a Singaporean and at the time of the marriage was working there. The wife is a Filipina, and is now a permanent resident in Singapore. Both are domiciled in Singapore. Two children were born: Jennifer on 27 March 1982 and Josephine on 22 February 1983. Josephine unfortunately passed away on 25 October 1993 as a result of a road traffic accident. From 1984 to December 1993 the parties lived at their matrimonial flat, namely Blk 470 Tampines St 44, #05-192, Singapore 1852 (the flat). The flat was purchased on 1 August 1985 by the husband and cost $77,700, which was paid solely from his own funds.

In September 1993, the wife petitioned for a divorce on the ground that the marriage had broken down irretrievably owing to the unreasonable behaviour of the husband. In October 1993, the husband filed an answer as well as a cross-petition. The wife and Jennifer then left the matrimonial home in December 1993. Subsequently, Kan Ting Chiu JC (as he then was) made an interim order in April 1994 for a joint custody of the child with the wife having the care and control of the child. Separate sums as interim maintenance for the child and the wife were also ordered.

The petition came on for hearing before Lai Kew Chai J. It was part-heard and was adjourned to a further date to be fixed. Prior to the date being fixed, negotiations took place between the parties and the husband agreed to withdraw the answer and the cross-petition and the wife agreed to withdraw the reply and answer to the cross-petition. Following that, in September 1994 the petition then uncontested came on for further hearing before Lai Kew Chai J. The learned judge granted the decree nisi to the wife and adjourned for hearing in chambers all ancillary matters. These matters then came on for hearing before Choo Han Teck JC in July and August 1995, and he made the order now under appeal.

Decision below

The main issue of contention before the learned judge was the matrimonial flat: each of them wanted the flat for himself or herself. The learned judge decided as follows:

I made the order that the respondent [the husband] may keep the matrimonial flat, and with that in mind, I ordered that the petitioner [the wife] be given a 50% share of the value of the matrimonial assets which I determined as S$589,332.95. I told parties that if I had ordered the flat to be transferred to the petitioner her share of the matrimonial assets would be in the region of 40% (inclusive of the value of the flat). As both parties were equally keen to have the flat I placed a premium of 10% on it. I also ordered that the respondent advance S$50,000 within 14 days to the petitioner and the balance as and when the CPF Board will release the money to him. I further ordered that the respondent shall have no claim to any compensation payable in respect of their daughter`s civil claim and that the petitioner takes over the conduct of the claim.

The appeal

The main issue before us was whether the learned judge was right in awarding to the wife 50% of the total value of the matrimonial assets. The husband advanced several arguments against the decision of the learned judge. First, it was contended that in computing the value of the matrimonial assets acquired by the husband only the period commencing from the date of the marriage and ending on the date when the marriage irretrievably broke down, ie 9 September 1993, being the date the wife filed the petition, should be reckoned. Therefore any assets acquired by the husband prior...