Zheng Zhuan Yao v Mok Kah Hong

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Quentin Loh J
• Judgment Date: 29 April 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGHC 84
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Divorce Suit No 865 of 2010
• Published date: 10 March 2016
• Year: 2014
• Hearing Date: 26 September 2013,05 September 2013,13 March 2012,01 November 2013,27 September 2013,03 September 2013,04 September 2013,25 September 2013,12 March 2012,04 November 2013
• Plaintiff Counsel: Foo Soon Yien and Poon Pui Yee (Bernard & Rada Law Corporation)
• Defendant Counsel: Bernice Loo (Allen & Gledhill LLP)
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Matrimonial Assets,Division,Maintenance,Wife
• Citation: [2014] SGHC 84

Quentin Loh J:

This was a dispute concerning the division of matrimonial assets and maintenance. The parties’ claims were poles apart. The defendant wife, Mok Kah Hong (“W”) asked for S$25mbeing part of the true assets of the plaintiff husband, Zheng Zhuan Yao (“H”), that formed part of the matrimonial property which she assessed at being over S$45m. H claimed that he was indigent and mired in multiple debts, his business ventures having all failed. H also averred that he suffered from various medical conditions which would affect his ability to earn an income in the future.

Despite the numerous affidavits filed – H alone filed 12 affidavits – the evidence put forward by both parties was not the model of clarity and some of it was also outdated. In order to arrive at a just decision, I ordered H and W to take the witness stand to have their respective claims and allegations tested by cross-examination.

Eventually, I delivered an oral judgment with brief reasons on 28 November 2013. Both parties have since appealed against my decision. I now therefore give the detailed grounds of my decision.

Background facts

As at the time of my oral judgment, H was 52 years old and W was 51 years old. H and W were married on 25 July 1983. Interim judgment for divorce was granted on 27 July 2010. The parties had been married for 27 years. There is a son from their union, Tay Daxian (“the Son”), who was 22 years old as at the time of my oral judgment. Little or no issue arose on account of the son. H agreed to maintain him and to pay his university fees until he secures a full time job after completing his tertiary education.

H also has a “second” family with his mistress, a Malaysian, Madam Pok Poh Choo (“Madam Pok”). This liaison has gone on for over 20 years and H has two children by Madam Pok. H successfully kept this secret from W and the Son for many years.

H first wrote to W on 22 August 2008 through his solicitors, Messrs J S Yeh & Co, suggesting a divorce because their relationship had irretrievably broken down. This was followed up by another letter dated 30 December 2009 from his current solicitors stating that he intended to file for a divorce. H filed these divorce proceedings on 26 February 2010. Five further dates are significant: On 19 January 2010, H mortgaged the apartment, 88 Stevens Court #03-01, Singapore 257865 (“Stevens Court”), to OCBC without telling W; On 21 January 2010, H allegedly “pledged” his 1 million shares in First Grade Agency Pte Ltd (“First Grade”) to his father’s sister, Madam Tay Ban Geok, (“Madam Tay”); On 11 June 2010, H transferred his 3 million shares in Tay Aik Leng Holding Investment Pte Ltd to his father, Mr Tay Jui Chuan (“Mr Tay JC”); On 1 September 2010, H transferred his 1 million shares in Inhil Investment Pte Ltd to his father’s brother, Mr Teh Jui Kern (“Mr Teh JK”); and On 15 September 2010 W obtained an injunction against H from dissipating, disposing and/or dealing with, in any way, the Stevens Court property and H’s shareholdings in various companies, including First Grade. However, in breach of the injunction, H further mortgaged the Stevens Court property (see below at [19]). H presumably did not disclose this fact to his lawyer as this further mortgage was not referred to in his lawyer’s submissions of 7 March 2012.

The parties’ proposals

Before me, the parties each set out proposals in relation to these ancillary issues.

H was willing to offer W S$600,000 for the purchase of an apartment and S$5,000 in monthly maintenance. The purchase of the apartment was to be financed by way of a loan for S$400,000 and S$200,000 of his CPF monies. H was also willing to let W keep all the assets currently in her sole name.

W sought a lump-sum maintenance of S$5,760,000 based on a multiplicand of S$384,000 per year to be multiplied by 15 years (or in the alternative, monthly maintenance of S$32,000), 50% of all the matrimonial assets including the following:¹ The transfer of the Stevens Court property to her sole name free from encumbrance; The transfer of 64 Farrer Road, #05-05, Spanish Village, (“Spanish Village”) to her sole name free from encumbrance; and All assets currently in her name to remain so.

W also prayed that H maintain the Son solely, pay for all of his tertiary education expenses and continue to pay for his insurance policies until the premium was fully paid up. H agreed to do so and no dispute therefore arose from this issue. H and W have also agreed that their Son is free to choose who he wants to stay with when he returns to Singapore.

Division of matrimonial assets The Law

Section 112 of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) governs the division of matrimonial assets in a divorce. In ATT v ATS [2012] 2 SLR 859 (at [14]), the Court of Appeal noted that a wide discretion remains with the court in determining what a just and equitable division in the circumstances of each case would be. A broad brush approach is typically adopted and this is appropriate in the circumstances of this case.

The Court of Appeal went on to state the steps which would be desirable for the Court to take to determine this ancillary issue (at [15]). The first step is to delineate what constitutes the pool of matrimonial assets and to value it. In this regard, two dates are of importance: the date for deciding what fell into the pool and the date for determining the value of the pool. In Yeo Chong Lin v Tay Ang Choo Nancy and another appeal [2011] 2 SLR 1157 (“Yeo Chong Lin”) (at [36]), the Court of Appeal declined to set down a definitive operative date for deciding what assets would comprise the matrimonial pool and observed that the appropriate date would depend on the facts of the case. As regards the date for determining the value of the pool, the Court of Appeal identified the date of the hearing as the operative date (at [39]). Recent case law, however, suggests a more flexible approach such that the court has the discretion to choose a more appropriate date of valuation in order to arrive at a “just and equitable division”: see Anthony Patrick Nathan v Chan Siew Chin [2011] 4 SLR 1121 (at [29]); Wan Lai Cheng v Quek Seow Kee and another appeal and another matter [2012] 4 SLR 405 (at [71]); and Wong Kien Keong v Khoo Hoon Eng [2014] 1 SLR 1342 (at [106]).

Having made the above determinations, the court will then consider all the circumstances of the case, including but not limited to the factors listed in s 112(2) of the Women’s Charter, to determine what is the just and equitable proportion to be given to each party. Having determined this, the Court may then proceed to ascertain the most expedient means of physically executing the division of assets.

With these general principles in mind, I turn to the dispute proper.

Matrimonial assets available for division

The following assets were not really in dispute, either over value or characterisation as a matrimonial asset. The assets and their total value are as follows: H’s Central Provident Fund (“CPF”) Accounts:² S$297,254.80; W’s CPF Accounts:³ S$17,209.65; W’s Investments:⁴ S$292,866.13; W’s Bank Accounts (Sole and Joint names):⁵ S$121,283.62; and W’s Insurance Policies – no details were given although W suggested they had “surrender” value. In those submissions, W claimed she uncovered some 19 bank accounts in H’s name but could only obtain the balances in 4 accounts which added up to S$546,361.69. She also claimed to have uncovered 4 unvalued insurance policies and shares in numerous companies. There were also cars and safety deposit boxes. I will deal with these later. I will deal first with the assets that were disputed either over value or characterisation as a matrimonial asset.

The Properties

Stevens Court Property

The Stevens Court property is in H’s sole name. H maintained that the Stevens Court property was a gift from his father. The supporting Transfer Form attached to H’s first affidavit indicated that the Stevens Court property had been transferred from Inhil Investment Pte Ltd (“Inhil”) to H for a consideration of S$550,000.⁶ Mr Tay JC explained in his affidavit that the consideration of S$550,000 had been advanced by himself to Inhil previously and that he had intended the Stevens Court property to be a gift to H.⁷ H further alleged that W had not contributed to the property’s upkeep or improvement throughout the marriage. As such, H argued that the Stevens Court property did not form part of the matrimonial assets subject to division.

Notwithstanding the Stevens Court property being a gift, I found that the property was the matrimonial home and therefore a matrimonial asset as per s 112(10)(b) of the Women’s Charter: see Chen Siew Hwee v Low Kee Guan (Wong Yong Yee, co-respondent) [2006] 4 SLR(R) 605 at [33] on the application of the gift proviso in the provision. It was undisputed that during the course of their marriage, both H and W had lived in the property with the Son as a household from around 1994 onwards. The flat was renovated a number of times whilst they were living there.

There is presently an OCBC mortgage on the Stevens Court property. H had declared in his affidavit that as of 4 October 2010, the loans for which the mortgage was secured for a total amount of S$2,530,817.89 comprised of:⁸ Mortgage Loan Account No XXX-XXX-8646-XXXXX for S$2,034,649.24; and OCBC Easisave Account No XXX-XXX937-XXX for S$496,168.65.

However, H had, in breach of a court injunction dated 15 September 2010, further mortgaged the Stevens Court property (Mortgage Loan Account No. 538-000-9538-00000) secretly. This only came to light when H produced a printout⁹ at the 4 September 2013 hearing which showed that the loan remaining as of 3 and 4 September 2013 stood at: Mortgage Loan Account No XXX-XXX-8646-XXXXX for S$1,808,435.21; OCBC Easisave Account No XXX-XXXXXX-001 for S$148,737.74; and Mortgage Loan...