Tan Hwee Lee v Tan Cheng Guan: Division of Matrimonial Assets & Inter-Spousal Gifts
In Tan Hwee Lee v Tan Cheng Guan, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard appeals by both the wife, Tan Hwee Lee, and the husband, Tan Cheng Guan, against the High Court's decision regarding the division of matrimonial assets and maintenance following their divorce. The primary legal issue was whether an inter-spousal gift should be considered a matrimonial asset under the Women’s Charter. The court upheld the inclusion of an inter-spousal gift as a matrimonial asset, but adjusted the valuation of one property and the responsibility for its outstanding loan. The court drew an adverse inference against the husband for failure to account for sums of money. Ultimately, the court adjusted the lump sum cash payment to the wife.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Civil Appeal No 135 of 2011 allowed in part; Civil Appeal No 136 of 2011 allowed in part.
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal concerning division of matrimonial assets and maintenance. The key issue was whether an inter-spousal gift is a matrimonial asset.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tan Hwee Lee | Appellant, Respondent | Individual | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | |
| Tan Cheng Guan | Respondent, Appellant | Individual | Appeal allowed in part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of Appeal | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of Appeal | Yes |
| V K Rajah | Justice of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The parties were married on 9 October 1982 and have two daughters.
- The Husband is an Executive Vice-President at Sembcorp Industries Ltd, while the Wife is a homemaker.
- The parties owned three properties: 32 Seletar Hills Drive, 34 Seletar Hills Drive, and 36E La Salle Street.
- The parties' relationship deteriorated, and they entered into a Deed of Separation in 1999.
- In 2007, the Husband transferred 40% of 32 Seletar Hills Drive to the Wife, resulting in her holding 90% of the property.
- The Husband commenced divorce proceedings in Singapore in April 2008.
- The District Judge made an interim maintenance order requiring the Husband to pay $6,000 a month for the Wife and the Children.
5. Formal Citations
- Tan Hwee Lee v Tan Cheng Guan, Civil Appeals Nos 135 and 136 of 2011, and Summons No 266 of 2012, [2012] SGCA 50
- Tan Cheng Guan v Tan Hwee Lee, , [2011] 4 SLR 1148
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Parties married | |
| Parties lived in 32 Seletar Hills Drive | |
| Husband worked at Sembcorp | |
| Parties entered into a Deed of Separation | |
| Parties resided in 34 Seletar Hills Drive | |
| Husband accepted job in Shanghai | |
| Husband moved out of family home in Shanghai | |
| Parties executed a deed | |
| Sale and purchase agreement dated | |
| Title deed transfer dated | |
| Husband rejoined Sembcorp in Singapore | |
| Husband wrote a letter setting out financial provisions | |
| Formal deed executed making financial provisions | |
| Husband commenced divorce proceedings in Singapore | |
| Wife and younger daughter returned to Singapore | |
| District Judge made an interim maintenance order | |
| Decree nisi granted | |
| Wife applied to adduce further evidence | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Division of Matrimonial Assets
- Outcome: The court upheld the inclusion of inter-spousal gifts as matrimonial assets but adjusted the valuation of one property.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Valuation of assets
- Apportionment of assets
- Inclusion of inter-spousal gifts
- Maintenance
- Outcome: The court upheld the lump sum maintenance order but adjusted the overall division of assets.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Quantum of maintenance
- Lump sum maintenance order
- Adducing Further Evidence
- Outcome: The court dismissed the Wife’s application to adduce further evidence.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Division of Matrimonial Assets
- Maintenance
- Lump Sum Payment
9. Cause of Actions
- Divorce
- Division of Matrimonial Assets
- Maintenance
10. Practice Areas
- Divorce
- Family Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tan Cheng Guan v Tan Hwee Lee | High Court | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 1148 | Singapore | Decision from which this appeal arose regarding the division of matrimonial assets and maintenance. |
| Wan Lai Cheng v Quek Seok Kee | High Court | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 814 | Singapore | Cited for the view that an inter-spousal gift fell within the proviso to s 112(10) and was therefore not a matrimonial asset, a view the Judge expressly disagreed with. |
| Wan Lai Cheng v Quek Seow Kee | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] SGCA 40 | Singapore | Clarified that inter-spousal gifts of assets which do not originate from a third-party gift or inheritance are not gifts for the purposes of s 112(10) of the Act, and therefore constitute matrimonial assets for division. |
| Ladd v Marshall | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1954] 1 WLR 1489 | England and Wales | Cited for the three-condition test to be fulfilled in order to be granted leave to adduce further evidence. |
| Sim Cheng Soon v BT Engineering Pte Ltd and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR(R) 551 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the fact that a party was represented by different solicitors earlier is, in and of itself, insufficient to establish that the piece of evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence. |
| Chan Fook Kee v Chan Siew Fong | High Court | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 143 | Singapore | Cited by the Wife to buttress her arguments to adduce the Further Evidence. The court distinguished this case. |
| Chan Siew Fong v Chan Fook Kee | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 93 | Singapore | Cited as reversing Chan Fook Kee v Chan Siew Fong [2001] 2 SLR(R) 143, but not on the particular point discussed. |
| Yeo Gim Tong Michael v Tianzon Lolita | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR(R) 633 | Singapore | Cited for the general rule that an inter-spousal gift should be included in the pool of matrimonial assets. |
| Yow Mee Lan v Chen Kai Buan | High Court | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 659 | Singapore | Cited as a case where courts have held that an inter-spousal gift ought to remain a matrimonial asset. |
| Sigrid Else Roger Marthe Wauters v Lieven Corneel Leo Raymond Van Den Brande | High Court | Yes | [2011] SGHC 237 | Singapore | Cited as a case where courts have held that an inter-spousal gift ought to remain a matrimonial asset. |
| Soon Geok Hong v Ong Yeow Tiong | High Court | Yes | [1995] SGHC 78 | Singapore | Cited as a case where a different position appears to have been taken regarding inter-spousal gifts. Constitutes the only true exception to the general rule regarding de minimis inter-spousal gifts. |
| Lee Leh Hua v Yip Kok Leong | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 554 | Singapore | Cited as a case where a different position appears to have been taken regarding inter-spousal gifts. The court found that the proposition stated in this case is inconsistent with the s 112(1) approach and should no longer be followed. |
| Wong Ser Wan v Ng Cheong Ling | High Court | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 416 | Singapore | Cited as a case where a different position appears to have been taken regarding inter-spousal gifts. The court found that the inequity exception as set out in this case should no longer be followed. |
| NK v NL | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 743 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the list of matters in s 112(2)(a)-(h) is not exhaustive and that the court is entitled to have regard to all the circumstances of the case in order to achieve a just and equitable division of the matrimonial assets. |
| AXW v AXX | High Court | Yes | [2012] SGHC 121 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the list of matters in s 112(2)(a)-(h) is not exhaustive and that the court is entitled to have regard to all the circumstances of the case in order to achieve a just and equitable division of the matrimonial assets. |
| Tay Ang Choo Nancy v Yeo Chong Lin | High Court | Yes | [2010] SGHC 126 | Singapore | Cited as subsequent case law that understood Thean JA to be establishing the following practical exception: the court, in determining the pool of matrimonial assets, can exercise its discretion to exclude de minimis inter-spousal gifts from that pool. |
| Yeo Chong Lin v Tay Ang Choo Nancy | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 1157 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that whether or not a gift is considered to be de minimis for the purpose of the present exception would depend very much on the precise factual matrix before the court. |
| Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai Huah | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] SGCA 21 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will generally be reluctant to interfere in the order made by the lower court on the apportionment and division of matrimonial assets unless it can be demonstrated that the lower court has committed an error of law or principle, or has failed to appreciate certain crucial facts. |
| MZ v NA | High Court | Yes | [2006] SGHC 95 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that to succeed in his appeal, the Husband must be able to demonstrate that the Judge misapplied a principle of law, or had clearly made an error of fact that was not only obvious, but also significant, and, thereby, rendered the consequence unfair to the parties. |
| Pang Rosaline v Chan Kong Chin | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 935 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that direct financial contributions are not to be considered as a prima facie starting point. |
| Lock Yeng Fun v Chua Hock Chye | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 520 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that equality in division is not the starting point or the norm in the division of matrimonial assets between spouses. |
| Chan Yuen Boey v Sia Hee Soon | High Court | Yes | [2012] SGHC 92 | Singapore | Cited for the trend in awarding the homemaker wife a greater proportion of the matrimonial assets in longer marriages. |
| Chan Teck Hock David v Leong Mei Chuan | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 76 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the non-financial contributions of a wife should not be taken to have ceased prior to the interim judgment date even if the relationship had broken down much earlier. |
| Foo Ah Yan v Chiam Heng Chow | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 506 | Singapore | Cited for the principles regarding the assessment of the appropriate monthly multiplicand for maintenance orders. |
| Quek Lee Tiam v Ho Kim Swee (alia Ho Kian Guan) | High Court | Yes | [1995] SGHC 23 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that assessment of the appropriate monthly multiplicand begins with the wife’s financial needs as derived from her particulars of expenditure, scaled down for reasonableness. |
| NI v NJ | High Court | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 75 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a former wife must, where possible, exert reasonable efforts to secure gainful employment and contribute to preserve her pre-breakdown lifestyle. |
| Tham Khai Meng v Nam Wen Jet Bernadette | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR(R) 336 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that consideration of the reasonableness of a maintenance order can include the amount of assets a wife has received by the order of division of matrimonial assets. |
| Wong Amy v Chua Seng Chuan | High Court | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR(R) 143 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the quantum of maintenance depends at the end of the day on the court’s sense of justice. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 57 r 13(2) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 112(10) of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 112(2)(h) of the Act | Singapore |
| s 114(1)(a) of the Act | Singapore |
| s 112(1) of the Act | Singapore |
| s 112(2)(e) | Singapore |
| s 114(2) of the Act | Singapore |
| s 115(1) of the Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Matrimonial Assets
- Inter-Spousal Gift
- Maintenance
- Lump Sum Maintenance
- Division of Assets
- Homemaker
- Financial Contributions
- Non-Financial Contributions
- Deed of Separation
- Outstanding Loan
15.2 Keywords
- Divorce
- Matrimonial Assets
- Inter-Spousal Gift
- Maintenance
- Singapore Law
- Family Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Matrimonial Assets | 95 |
| Family Law | 95 |
| Divorce | 90 |
| Maintenance | 85 |
| Matrimonial Assets Division | 80 |
| Division of Matrimonial Property | 75 |
| Inter-spousal Gift | 70 |
| Gifts | 60 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
| Civil Procedure | 20 |
| Evidence | 15 |
16. Subjects
- Family Law
- Divorce
- Matrimonial Assets
- Inter-Spousal Gifts
- Maintenance