Zhao Lu v Lee Yong Kwong Johnson

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: May Loh
• Judgment Date: 09 April 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] SGDC 99
• Published date: 02 July 2007
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Loo with Lee (Allen & Gledhill)
• Defendant Counsel: Nai (Abraham Low LLC)

9 April 2007

District Judge May Loh

1 The parties registered their marriage in Singapore on 9 September 2005. On 12 July 2006, the plaintiff lodged an application under s 94 of the Women’s Charter (‘the Charter’) for leave to file a writ of summons for dissolution of marriage notwithstanding that three years had not passed since the date of the marriage.

2 Section 94 provides:

(1) No writ for divorce shall be filed in the court unless at the date of the filing of the writ 3 years have passed since the date of the marriage.

(2) The court may, upon application being made in accordance with the Rules of Court, allow a writ to be filed before 3 years have passed on the ground that the case is one of exceptional hardship suffered by the plaintiff or of exceptional depravity on the part of the defendant, but if it appears to the court at the hearing of the proceedings that the plaintiff obtained leave to file the writ by any misrepresentation or concealment of the nature of the case, the court may, if it grants an interim judgment, do so subject to the condition that no application to make the judgment final shall be made until after the expiration of 3 years from the date of the marriage, or may dismiss the proceedings without prejudice to any proceedings which may be brought after the expiration of the said 3 years upon the same, or substantially the same, facts as those proved in support of the proceedings so dismissed.

(3) In determining any application under this section for leave to file a writ before the expiration of 3 years from the date of the marriage, the court shall have regard to the interest of any child of the marriage and to the question whether there is reasonable probability of a reconciliation between the parties before the expiration of the said 3 years.

(4) The court may, before determining an application under this section, refer the differences between the parties to a Conciliation Officer so that a reconciliation between the parties might be effected.

(5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prohibit the filing of a writ based upon matters which have occurred before the expiration of 3 years from the date of the marriage.

3 I disallowed the application and gave brief reasons. The plaintiff has appealed and my full grounds are set out below.

The plaintiff’s version of events

4 The plaintiff’s version of events is set out in considerable detail in her affidavit filed 12 July 2006. The narration leaves one with a strong impression of the plaintiff. The following is a summary of her statements made in the affidavit. The plaintiff had moved to Singapore in 1998 to work. Parties were introduced to each other on 25 March 2005. The plaintiff was 29 years old at the time of her application in 2006 while the defendant was 38 years old. The plaintiff’s case is that they had a whirlwind romance during which time the defendant made several promises relating to their material well-being after marriage. He lived with his parents, worked in the family business and drove a BMW. She had rented her own flat in Newton and had her own car but they had agreed to sell her car after marriage and he would provide for her transport needs. They were to move in and stay with his parents. The plaintiff was also very impressed with the defendant’s offer to help provide for her parents. She was an only child and solely supported her parents in Tianjin, China.

5 Sometime in May 2005 the plaintiff had sought to end the relationship. The defendant had informed the plaintiff that he was taking drugs and the plaintiff had heard of the defendant’s womanizing ways. However the defendant had pleaded successfully to his ‘lao po’ that life would be meaningless without her. The plaintiff exhibited a card from the defendant making this declaration. The plaintiff stated that she decided to forgive him. When he proposed shortly after in mid-May 2005, she stated that she was ‘ecstatic’. She averred that although she was aware of mental health problems suffered by his family members, she ‘did not discriminate against the defendant or his family’. At paragraph 29 of her first affidavit, the plaintiff said ‘I only agreed to marry the defendant because I loved him whole-heartedly and I believed that we had a good future together, based on his promises to me.’

6 The plaintiff was doing well at work. In June 2005, she had accepted a new job in Shanghai over another offer of work in Beijing. This choice, according to the plaintiff, was out of deference to the defendant’s family business plans to branch out to Shanghai.

7 Five hundred guests attended their lavish wedding ceremony at the Shangri-la Hotel, Singapore on 9 September 2005. According to the plaintiff, the defendant presented her with what he said was a 1.6 carat diamond ring and declared he had spent S$30,000 on their wedding rings.

8 After the ceremony, they stayed with his parents and lived a life of luxury. By this, she stated that they shopped only at the best shops. They discussed plans to have a baby in 2006 and the plaintiff was excited about this.

9 However, within a month after the wedding, the plaintiff began seeing a different side of the defendant. They had an argument during which she claimed the defendant hit her. She suffered bruises but no report was made as she agreed with his parents to try working things out with him.

10 In mid-October 2005, she left for Shanghai to begin her new job. The defendant joined her a few weeks later. The defendant was unhappy with the plaintiff’s client entertainment duties. The plaintiff reduced these dinners from thrice to once a week and tried to be home by 5.30 p.m. She did her best to introduce him to her extensive contacts in Shanghai, to assist in setting up his family business. Despite this, there were frequent arguments between them.

11 The defendant’s parents visited parties in Shanghai in mid-March 2006. The defendant’s mother accused the plaintiff of not taking proper care of the defendant. The parties quarreled and the defendant moved out of their bedroom. The next day the defendant left the flat early before leaving for a scheduled visit to Singapore.

12 The plaintiff returned to Singapore a week later. The defendant’s father picked her up at the airport and drove her home. The plaintiff was upset to discover that their wedding photograph had been removed. The defendant informed the plaintiff that he wanted a separation. The plaintiff was extremely shocked and wanted to work things out. The defendant’s parents also urged parties to resolve their differences.

13 The defendant returned to Shanghai a day before the plaintiff. By the time the plaintiff returned to their Shanghai flat the following day, the defendant had moved his belongings out of their flat. Thereafter, the defendant met the plaintiff for a few dinners but refused to discuss their marriage.

14 In mid-April 2005, the defendant ‘suddenly emailed’ the plaintiff and said he no longer wished to remain in the marriage. The plaintiff went to the defendant’s residence in Shanghai and begged him for a reconciliation. She had been feeling nauseous and asked him what he would do if she were pregnant. The defendant replied that he would not be sure if the child was his. The plaintiff became hysterical and clung to the defendant. He pushed her aside. The plaintiff claimed that his cold reaction caused her to fall down the stairs and injure her knee. In another later incident, the plaintiff went with her mother to the defendant’s residence. She picked up his handphone and read through his text messages. This infuriated the defendant so much that he approached her in a threatening manner but was stopped by the plaintiff’s mother.

15 The plaintiff was depressed and spent time in hospital. Sometime in mid-April 2006, the plaintiff received a phone call from some friends informing her that they had seen the defendant behaving intimately with another lady. The plaintiff was then in hospital and on IV drip but she was so distraught that she pulled out the drip and jumped into a car driven by her god-brother to join her friends in tracking down the defendant. It was 2 a.m. in the morning. One of her friends pretended to be the defendant’s neighbour and rang the doorbell. The plaintiff averred that when the defendant opened the door, the plaintiff observed that the apartment was romantically decorated with candles. The plaintiff stated that she was so distressed and affected by the defendant’s conduct that she was unable to perform at work. Her employment was terminated in May 2006.

16 When in Singapore in June 2006, the plaintiff received a phone-call from someone claiming to be ‘a good friend’ of the defendants. The caller’s tone was fierce and threatening. The phone number was that of her former Shanghai employer’s office. She called the number back and was informed by an ex-colleague that three gangsters had barged into the office demanding to know her whereabouts. When informed that the plaintiff was no longer an employee, they used the office telephone and called the plaintiff’s mobile. The plaintiff filed a police report on this incident in Shanghai on 18 June 2006.

17 Around this time, the plaintiff brought her diamond ring (and other jewelry given to her by the defendant and his family) to a jeweler for certification. The jeweler revealed that the stones used in the jewelry were not diamonds, but Moissanite.

18 As a result of the above, the plaintiff averred that she had suffered extreme hardship in the defendant’s hands and /or that the defendant had behaved with exceptional depravity towards her. The plaintiff stated that she had ceased to function as a normal human being. She felt cheated and ruined and the only possible means of survival was to obtain a divorce. There was clearly no possibility of reconciliation.

19 Finally, the plaintiff exhibited two reports, one from counsellors at Care Singapore and a brief report from a consulting...