Au Kin Chung v Ho Kit Joo: Division of Matrimonial Assets After Long Marriage

In Au Kin Chung v Ho Kit Joo, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Au Kin Chung against the decision of the District Court regarding the division of matrimonial assets. The District Court had awarded Ho Kit Joo 70% and Au Kin Chung 30% of the assets. Au Kin Chung argued for an equal division and the inclusion of profits from property sales and rental income in the asset pool. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no legal basis to include the profits and rentals, and upholding the unequal division due to Au Kin Chung's failure to fully disclose his assets. The court considered the financial and non-financial contributions of both parties during the 32-year marriage.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Written Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal concerning the division of matrimonial assets after a 32-year marriage. The court considered financial contributions, non-financial contributions, and adverse inferences.

1.7 Decision Date

11 September 2007

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Au Kin Chung	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Susan Siaw of Siaw Kheng Boon & Co
Ho Kit Joo	Respondent	Individual	Judgment Affirmed	Won	Bernice Loo of Ramdas & Wong Lee Geck Hoon Ellen of Ramdas & Wong Jessica Lee of Ramdas & Wong

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw Ean	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Susan Siaw	Siaw Kheng Boon & Co
Bernice Loo	Ramdas & Wong
Lee Geck Hoon Ellen	Ramdas & Wong
Jessica Lee	Ramdas & Wong

4. Facts

The parties were married for almost 32 years.
The wife was a homemaker and managed the family's property portfolio.
The husband worked overseas and contributed financially to the family.
The husband did not fully disclose his assets.
The wife made direct financial contributions through her property investments.
The wife also made non-financial contributions by caring for the children.
The husband remitted funds for property purchases and family expenses.

5. Formal Citations

Au Kin Chung v Ho Kit Joo, D 600778/2003, RAS 720091/2005, [2007] SGHC 150

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1971-01-01	Parties married.
1972-01-01	Son born.
1973-01-01	Parties moved to apartment provided by Goodwood Park Hotel.
1974-01-01	Daughter born.
1976-01-01	Parties bought apartment in Cairnhill Road.
1978-01-01	HKJ became a freelance property agent.
1979-01-01	Apartment in Cairnhill Road was sold.
1980-01-01	AKC left his job at the Goodwood Park Hotel and moved to Hong Kong.
1981-01-01	Property at 37 Oei Tiong Ham Park was sold.
1983-01-01	AKC purchased the Cable Car business.
1985-01-01	HKJ bought property at 2775 Palmerston Avenue, Vancouver, Canada.
1985-01-01	AKC acquired properties in Hong Kong.
1985-03-01	HKJ acquired shop unit in Midpoint Orchard.
1987-01-01	Parties acquired substantial assets.
1988-01-01	HKJ purchased No 41 Oei Tiong Ham Park.
1988-01-01	AKC sold part of the Cable Car business.
1989-01-01	HKJ sold the shop unit in Midpoint Orchard.
1989-01-01	HKJ and her daughter moved into 41 Oei Tiong Ham Park.
1990-01-01	Daughter was sent to boarding school in England.
1991-01-01	AKC’s second tranche of shares in Multisectors were sold.
1991-01-01	AKC stopped remitting money to HKJ for the family’s expenses.
1991-01-01	HKJ vacated 41 OTH in order to earn rental income.
1991-01-01	HKJ bought the property at No 24 Oei Tiong Ham Park.
1992-01-01	HKJ purchased the property at No 5 St Petersburg Mews, Bayswater, London.
1992-01-01	AKC acquired a unit in Commercial Building, Kowloon which he resold in the same year.
1994-01-01	HKJ found that AKC was having an affair.
1994-01-01	HKJ bought 11C Queen Astrid Gardens.
1994-01-01	24 OTH was sold.
1997-01-01	HKJ purchased the property at No 80 Mount Sinai Drive, #11-05, (“The Sierra”).
1998-01-01	National Bank of Asia threatened to foreclose the Greenville property.
1998-01-01	HKJ sold the Hatherly Grove property.
1999-01-01	AKC sold the factory units in Unison building.
2001-01-01	AKC sold the factory units in Unison building.
2003-03-01	Divorce proceedings commenced.
2003-10-01	Decree nisi was granted.
2005-01-01	Ancillary matters were heard.
2005-11-01	Judge delivered her judgment.
2006-03-01	Judge issued her written grounds of decision.
2007-09-12	Appeal dismissed.

7. Legal Issues

Division of Matrimonial Assets
- Outcome: The court upheld the unequal division of matrimonial assets, awarding 70% to the wife and 30% to the husband, due to the husband's failure to fully disclose his assets.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Whether there should be equal division of assets
  - Whether profits derived from sale proceeds of properties disposed of during marriage and rental income should be excluded from computation of matrimonial assets
  - Whether adverse inference should be drawn and its impact on proportion of assets awarded to parties
- Related Cases:
  - [2006] SGDC 37
  - [2000] 4 SLR 466
  - [2004] SGDC 87
  - [2001] 1 SLR 419
  - [2005] SCHC 218
  - [2007] 3 SLR 520
  - [1992] 1 SLR 688
  - [1996] 1 FCR 567
  - [2002] FCR 539
  - [2007] SGCA 35
  - [2000] 2 SLR 225
Adverse Inference for Non-Disclosure of Assets
- Outcome: The court drew an adverse inference against the husband for withholding information on his assets, which contributed to the decision to award a larger share of the matrimonial assets to the wife.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Withholding information on assets
  - Failure to account for sale proceeds
- Related Cases:
  - [1992] 1 SLR 688
  - [1996] 1 FCR 567
  - [2007] SGCA 35
  - [2000] 2 SLR 225

8. Remedies Sought

Division of Matrimonial Assets
Equal Division of Matrimonial Assets

9. Cause of Actions

Divorce
Division of Matrimonial Assets

10. Practice Areas

Divorce
Family Law
Matrimonial Asset Division

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Au Kin Chung v Ho Kit Joo	District Court	Yes	[2006] SGDC 37	Singapore	The judgment being appealed from.
Yow Mee Lan v Chen Kai Buan	High Court	Yes	[2000] 4 SLR 466	Singapore	Cited for the principle that assets disposed of during the marriage are not included in the pool of matrimonial assets for division, but the court will consider any sums or assets disposed of and not properly accounted for.
BJ v BK	District Court	Yes	[2004] SGDC 87	Singapore	Cited to support the rejection of AKC's demand for his share of past rentals as an afterthought.
Ryan v Berger	High Court	Yes	[2001] 1 SLR 419	Singapore	Cited for the recognition of non-financial contributions in matrimonial asset division.
Wong Ser Wan v Ng Cheong Ling	High Court	Yes	[2005] SCHC 218	Singapore	Cited to show that the wife's main contribution was in taking care of the family, and she had been awarded 40% of the assets.
Lock Yeng Fun v Chua Hock Chye	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 3 SLR 520	Singapore	Cited for recognizing the efforts and ability of the homemaker in the accretion of the family wealth as a direct financial contribution.
Wee Ah Lian v Teo Siak Weng	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1992] 1 SLR 688	Singapore	Cited for the importance of full and frank disclosure in ancillary matters and the court's entitlement to draw adverse inferences in its absence.
Baker v Baker	England and Wales Court of Appeal	Yes	[1996] 1 FCR 567	England and Wales	Cited for the duty upon a party to make a full and frank disclosure of all matters relevant to the assessment of the financial position of the parties.
Al Khatib v Masry and others	England and Wales High Court	Yes	[2002] FCR 539	England and Wales	Cited for the standard of proof of non-disclosure in ancillary matters being the normal civil standard of proof on a balance of probabilities.
NK v NL	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] SGCA 35	Singapore	Cited for the approach of ordering a higher proportion of the known assets to be given to the other spouse as a way of giving effect to the adverse inference drawn against a spouse.
Tay Sin Tor v Tan Chay Eng	High Court	Yes	[2000] 2 SLR 225	Singapore	Cited for the approach of determining the value of the undeclared asset pursuant to the adverse inference.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
s 112 of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Matrimonial Assets
Division of Assets
Adverse Inference
Non-Disclosure
Financial Contribution
Non-Financial Contribution
Homemaker
Property Investment
Rental Income
Sale Proceeds

15.2 Keywords

matrimonial assets
division of assets
family law
divorce
property
Singapore
adverse inference
non-disclosure

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Family Law	95
Matrimonial Assets	95
Division of Assets	95
Division of Matrimonial Property	90
Matrimonial Assets Division	90
Divorce	50
Indirect contributions ratio	30
Financial contribution	30
Unreasonable Behaviour	10

16. Subjects

Family Law
Divorce
Matrimonial Assets
Property Law