BLQ v BLR: Division of Matrimonial Assets & Spousal Maintenance Appeal
In BLQ v BLR, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by BLQ (the husband) against the decision of the District Judge regarding the division of matrimonial assets and maintenance for BLR (the wife) following their divorce. The husband sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, along with a stay of execution. The High Court dismissed both applications, finding no prima facie error of law in the lower court's decision regarding the division of assets and the drawing of adverse inferences from the husband's unaccounted withdrawals.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
SUM 30400/2013 and SUM 30539/2013 are dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal concerning the division of matrimonial assets and spousal maintenance after a 37-year marriage. The High Court affirmed the District Judge's orders.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BLQ | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | Willie Yeo |
| BLR | Respondent | Individual | Application Upheld | Won | Luna Yap |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tan Siong Thye | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Willie Yeo | Yeo Marini & Partners |
| Luna Yap | Luna Yap & Co |
4. Facts
- The husband and wife were married for 37 years and have two adult children.
- The marriage broke down due to the husband's 15-year relationship with a mistress.
- The husband filed for divorce based on the wife's unreasonable behavior; the wife counterclaimed on the same grounds.
- The District Judge awarded the wife 90% of the matrimonial flat due to unaccounted withdrawals by the husband and her direct/indirect contributions.
- The High Court corrected calculation errors, adjusting the division of proceeds from the matrimonial flat to 86:14 in favor of the wife.
- The husband sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal and a stay of execution, which were both dismissed.
5. Formal Citations
- BLQ v BLR, , [2011] SGHC 288
- BLQ v BLR, RAS No 101 of 2013, RAS No 101 of 2013
- BLQ v BLR, Divorce Suit No 409 of 2012, Divorce Suit No 409 of 2012
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Marriage broke down irretrievably | |
| Divorce Suit No 409 of 2012 | |
| Ancillary orders made by District Judge | |
| Appeal dismissed by High Court | |
| Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal filed | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Extension of Time to Appeal
- Outcome: The court found that the husband's counsel had not adequately accounted for the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Delay in filing application
- Adequacy of reasons for delay
- Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal
- Outcome: The court held that the husband had not demonstrated a prima facie case of error of law and dismissed the application for leave to appeal.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Prima facie case of error
- Question of general principle decided for the first time
- Question of importance upon which further argument and a decision of a higher tribunal would be to the public advantage
- Division of Matrimonial Assets
- Outcome: The court found no error in the District Judge's handling of the adverse inference drawn from the husband's unaccounted withdrawals and upheld the division of matrimonial assets.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Adverse inference from unaccounted withdrawals
- Proportion of contributions to matrimonial flat
8. Remedies Sought
- Leave to Appeal
- Stay of Execution
- Reversal of Asset Division
- Reversal of Maintenance Orders
9. Cause of Actions
- Divorce
- Division of Matrimonial Assets
- Spousal Maintenance
10. Practice Areas
- Divorce
- Family Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sun Jin Engineering Pte Ltd v Hwang Jae Woo | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 196 | Singapore | Cited for the factors to consider when determining whether an extension of time to file a notice of appeal should be granted. |
| Hau Khee Wee v Chua Kian Tong | N/A | Yes | [1985-1986] SLR(R) 1075 | Singapore | Cited for factors in determining whether an extension of time to file a notice of appeal should be granted. |
| Pearson Judith Rosemary v Chen Chien Wen Edwin | N/A | Yes | [1991] 2 SLR(R) 260 | Singapore | Cited for factors in determining whether an extension of time to file a notice of appeal should be granted. |
| AD v AE | N/A | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR(R) 505 | Singapore | Cited for factors in determining whether an extension of time to file a notice of appeal should be granted. |
| Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party | N/A | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 757 | Singapore | Cited for factors in determining whether an extension of time to file a notice of appeal should be granted. |
| Anwar Siraj v Ting Kang Chung John | N/A | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 1026 | Singapore | Cited for factors in determining whether an extension of time to file a notice of appeal should be granted. |
| The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v Reliance National Asia Re Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 121 | Singapore | Cited for factors in determining whether an extension of time to file a notice of appeal should be granted. |
| IW v IX | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR (R) 135 | Singapore | Cited for the test of whether leave should be granted for an appeal to the Court of Appeal. |
| Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong | N/A | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 862 | Singapore | Cited for the test of whether leave should be granted for an appeal to the Court of Appeal. |
| Abdul Rahman bin Shariff v Abdul Salim bin Syed | N/A | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 138 | Singapore | Cited for clarification that the test of prima facie case of error would not be satisfied by the assertion that the judge had reached the wrong conclusion on the evidence. |
| NK v NL | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 743 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that there were only two ways in which a court could take into account undisclosed matrimonial assets. |
| Yeo Chong Lin v Tay Ang Choo Nancy and another appeal | N/A | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 1157 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that there were only two ways in which a court could take into account undisclosed matrimonial assets. |
| Smith v Cosworth Casting Processes Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1997 1 WLR 1538 | N/A | Rejected the “realistic prospect of success’ approach |
| Tay Sin Tor v Tan Chay Eng | N/A | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR(R) 385 | Singapore | Cited as being emblematic of the first approach. |
| Lau Loon Seng v Sia Peck Eng | N/A | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR(R) 688 | Singapore | Cited as being emblematic of the first approach. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Matrimonial Assets
- Division of Assets
- Spousal Maintenance
- Leave to Appeal
- Stay of Execution
- Unreasonable Behaviour
- Adverse Inference
- Appellate Jurisdiction
15.2 Keywords
- divorce
- matrimonial assets
- appeal
- family law
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Family Law
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Matrimonial Law
17. Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Divorce Law
- Matrimonial Assets Division
- Civil Procedure