BMI v BMJ: Setting Aside Consent Order for Division of Matrimonial Assets Due to Alleged Fraudulent Non-Disclosure

In BMI v BMJ, the High Court of Singapore addressed the Wife's application to set aside a consent order made in 2000 regarding the division of matrimonial assets, alleging fraudulent non-disclosure by the Husband. The divorce proceedings commenced in 1995, and the Wife claimed the Husband had not fully disclosed his assets. The court, after considering the evidence and relevant legal principles, dismissed the Wife's application, finding insufficient evidence of fraudulent non-disclosure and that the Wife had not demonstrated that the alleged non-disclosure would have materially altered the original consent order.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Wife seeks to set aside consent order 16 years later, alleging Husband's fraudulent non-disclosure of assets. The court dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence of fraud.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
BMIPetitionerIndividualApplication DismissedLost
BMJRespondentIndividualCosts AwardedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Valerie TheanJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Chooi Jing YenEugene Thuraisingam LLP
Suang WijayaEugene Thuraisingam LLP
Eugene ThuraisingamEugene Thuraisingam LLP
Mervyn CheongEugene Thuraisingam LLP
Davinder Singh SCDrew & Napier LLC
Tricia HoDrew & Napier LLC
Randolph KhooDrew & Napier LLC
Veronica JosephDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. The Husband and Wife married on 23 June 1990 and have two children.
  2. The Wife started divorce proceedings on 29 September 1995.
  3. The Husband declared his assets in an affidavit of means dated 31 January 1996.
  4. The Wife alleged the Husband had not fully disclosed his assets during divorce proceedings.
  5. A decree nisi was granted in favor of the Wife on 11 August 1999.
  6. Parties entered into a Settlement Deed on 30 June 2000, recorded in a Consent Order.
  7. The Husband was to pay the Wife $13m in installments from January 2001 to June 2005.
  8. The Husband paid the sums as agreed, and the Consent Order was fully implemented.
  9. On 10 May 2016, the Wife sought to set aside the Consent Order based on alleged fraudulent non-disclosure.

5. Formal Citations

  1. BMI v BMJ, Divorce Petition No 2735 of 1995(Summons No 600047 of 2016), [2017] SGHC 112

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Husband and Wife married.
Wife started divorce proceedings.
Husband declared his assets in his affidavit of means.
Husband declared his assets in his supplementary affidavit of evidence-in-chief.
Decree nisi granted in favor of the Wife.
Settlement Deed signed and Consent Order granted.
Husband was to pay the Wife the sum of about $13m in ten instalments from January 2001 to June 2005.
Final payment instalment due from Husband to Wife.
Husband remarried (approximately).
[S G] Ltd incorporated.
Wife took out Summons No 600047 of 2016, seeking to set aside the Consent Order.
Court heard SUM 600047.
Wife filed her appeal in Civil Appeal No 40 of 2017.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Fraudulent Non-Disclosure
    • Outcome: The court found insufficient evidence of fraudulent non-disclosure on the Husband's part.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Deliberate and dishonest non-disclosure
      • Materiality of non-disclosure
  2. Setting Aside Consent Orders
    • Outcome: The court determined that the Wife had not met the threshold for setting aside the consent order.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Grounds for setting aside
      • Materiality of non-disclosure
      • Delay in application
  3. Compromise of Non-Disclosure Allegations
    • Outcome: The court held that the Wife had not compromised her allegations of non-disclosure.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Delay and Laches
    • Outcome: The court held that the passage of time, in and of itself, did not disentitle the Wife from relief.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Setting Aside Consent Order
  2. Further division of matrimonial assets

9. Cause of Actions

  • Setting Aside Consent Order
  • Fraudulent Non-Disclosure

10. Practice Areas

  • Divorce
  • Family Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Livesey (formerly Jenkins) v JenkinsHouse of LordsYes[1985] AC 424United KingdomCited as authority that non-disclosure is a ground upon which consent judgments may be set aside.
Gohil v Gohil (No 2)UK Supreme CourtYes[2016] AC 849United KingdomCited for the principle that one spouse cannot exonerate the other from complying with their duty to the court regarding full and frank disclosure.
Sharland v SharlandUK Supreme CourtYes[2015] UKSC 60United KingdomCited for the principle that the court is in no position to protect the victim from deception if the court too has been deceived.
AOO v AONCourt of AppealYes[2011] 4 SLR 1169SingaporeCited for the principle that the legal effect of a consent order in the matrimonial context is derived from the court order itself, not the agreement between the parties.
Ernest Ferdinand Perez de Lasala v Hannelore de LasalaPrivy CouncilYes[1980] AC 546Hong KongCited for the principle that the legal effect of a consent order in the matrimonial context is not derived from the agreement made between the parties, but instead, from the court order itself.
AYM v AYLCourt of AppealYes[2013] 1 SLR 924SingaporeCited for the principle that the legal effect of a consent order in the matrimonial context is not derived from the agreement made between the parties, but instead, from the court order itself.
Tommey v TommeyEnglish High CourtYes[1983] Fam 15EnglandCited for the principle that a judge who is asked to make a consent order cannot be compelled to do so.
Teh Siew Hua v Tan Kim ChiongHigh CourtYes[2010] 4 SLR 123SingaporeCited for the principle that an application under s 112(4) of the WC was not defeated by the equitable defences of acquiescence or laches.
Tan Yong San v Neo Kok Eng and othersHigh CourtYes[2011] SGHC 30SingaporeCited as an example where the High Court applied laches in a statutory context.
Saseedaran Nair s/o Krishnan v Nalini d/o K N RamachandranCourt of AppealYes[2012] 2 SLR 365SingaporeCited for the principle that there is a need for finality in the division of matrimonial assets, unless fraud is shown.
Wee Chiaw Sek Anna v Ng Li-Ann Genevieve (sole executrix of the estate of Ng Hock Seng, deceased) and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2013] 3 SLR 801SingaporeCited for the elements necessary to establish fraudulent misrepresentation.
Eng Mee Yong and others v Letchumanan s/o VelayuthamPrivy CouncilYes[1980] AC 331MalaysiaCited for the principle that it is not appropriate for a judge to attempt to resolve conflicts of evidence on affidavit.
Arul Chandran v Chew Chin Aik Victor JPHigh CourtYes[2000] SGHC 111SingaporeCited for the principle that a previous judgment making certain findings of fact cannot be merely tendered in another trial as proof of the existence of the truth of those facts.
Chan Teck Hock David v Leong Mei ChuanCourt of AppealYes[2002] 1 SLR(R) 76SingaporeCited for the principle that choses in action are divisible matrimonial assets.
Koh Kim Lan Angela v Choong Kian Haw and another appealCourt of AppealYes[1993] 3 SLR(R) 491SingaporeCited for the principle of awards for homemakers of short marriages.
ALJ v ALKHigh CourtYes[2010] SGHC 225SingaporeCited for the principle of awards for working wives in short marriages.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Section 112(4) Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
Family Justice Act 2014 (Act 27 of 2014)Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Consent Order
  • Fraudulent Non-Disclosure
  • Matrimonial Assets
  • Settlement Deed
  • Full and Frank Disclosure
  • Section 112(4) Women’s Charter
  • Materiality
  • Laches

15.2 Keywords

  • divorce
  • matrimonial assets
  • consent order
  • fraudulent non-disclosure
  • family law
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Family Law95
Consent Orders90
Matrimonial Assets80
Divorce75
Non-disclosure60
Maintenance50
Contract Law30
Estoppel25
Fraud and Deceit20

16. Subjects

  • Family Law
  • Divorce
  • Matrimonial Assets
  • Civil Procedure