CLB v. CLC: Division of Matrimonial Assets under Women's Charter
In the divorce case of *CLB v CLC*, the Family Division of the High Court of Singapore, presided over by Justice Debbie Ong, addressed the division of matrimonial assets. The court considered the impact of a pre-nuptial agreement and the classification of pre-marital assets and gifts under Section 112 of the Women's Charter. Ultimately, the court ordered an equal division of the matrimonial assets, valued at $13,233,139, between the Husband (CLB) and the Wife (CLC).
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court (Family Division)1.2 Outcome
Matrimonial assets divided equally between the parties.
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court judgment on division of matrimonial assets in divorce case, focusing on pre-nuptial agreement and treatment of pre-marital assets.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CLB | Plaintiff | Individual | Matrimonial assets divided equally | Partial | Chiok Beng Piow, Teo Jun Li, Tania |
| CLC | Defendant | Individual | Matrimonial assets divided equally | Partial | Yap Teong Liang, Tan Hui Qing, Lee Yuan Yu, Chen Yiyang |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Debbie Ong | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Chiok Beng Piow | JHT Law Corporation |
| Teo Jun Li, Tania | JHT Law Corporation |
| Yap Teong Liang | T L Yap Law Chambers LLC |
| Tan Hui Qing | T L Yap Law Chambers LLC |
| Lee Yuan Yu | Tan Kim Seng & Partners |
| Chen Yiyang | Tan Kim Seng & Partners |
4. Facts
- The Husband and Wife were married on 15 September 2003 and divorced on 26 July 2019.
- The parties have two children, aged 16 and 14 in 2021.
- The Husband claimed certain assets were pre-marriage assets or gifts and should be excluded from the matrimonial pool.
- The Wife argued that the Husband considered certain pre-marital assets as part of the family's assets.
- The parties had signed a Pre-Nuptial Agreement five days before their marriage.
- The Husband failed to fully account for a $496,419 discrepancy in the value of his assets.
- The Wife was the primary caregiver to the children when the Husband was abroad.
5. Formal Citations
- CLB v CLC, Divorce (Transferred) No 1639 of 2019, [2021] SGHCF 17
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Pre-nuptial agreement signed | |
| Parties married | |
| Interim judgment of divorce granted | |
| Ancillary matters relating to division of matrimonial assets heard | |
| Ancillary matters relating to division of matrimonial assets heard | |
| Judgment issued | |
| Grounds of decision issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Division of Matrimonial Assets
- Outcome: The court determined which assets constituted matrimonial assets and how they should be divided, considering the pre-nuptial agreement, contributions of each party, and an adverse inference against the Husband.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Valuation of assets
- Inclusion of pre-marital assets
- Effect of pre-nuptial agreement
- Commingling of assets
- Adverse inference for non-disclosure
- Effect of Pre-Nuptial Agreement
- Outcome: The court acknowledged the pre-nuptial agreement but did not accord it full weight, considering the parties' conduct during the marriage and the need for a just and equitable division.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Validity of pre-nuptial agreement
- Weight to be accorded to pre-nuptial agreement
- Abandonment of pre-nuptial agreement
- Classification of Assets as Matrimonial or Non-Matrimonial
- Outcome: The court determined whether specific assets, including the Australian Property, CPF moneys, and shares in companies, were matrimonial assets based on their acquisition, use, and transformation during the marriage.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Pre-marital assets
- Gifts and inheritance
- Transformation of assets
- Commingling of assets
- Adverse Inference for Non-Disclosure of Assets
- Outcome: The court drew an adverse inference against the Husband for failing to fully account for the increase in value of his assets and added the unaccounted sum to the pool of matrimonial assets.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Duty of full and frank disclosure
- Criteria for drawing adverse inference
- Quantification of undisclosed assets
8. Remedies Sought
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chen Siew Hwee v Low Kee Guan (Wong Yong Yee, co-respondent) | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 605 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that gifts and inheritance are excluded from matrimonial assets to prevent unwarranted windfalls, and the conditions under which they may lose their character as such. |
| USB v USA and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 588 | Singapore | Cited for the principle regarding the burden of proof in establishing whether an asset is a matrimonial asset or not. |
| TQU v TQT | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 8 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the burden lies on the party asserting that an asset is a matrimonial asset to show how it was transformed. |
| TQ v TR and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 961 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that pre-nuptial agreements cannot be enforced in and of itself, but the court may have regard to such pre-nuptial agreements under s 112(2)(e) of the Women’s Charter. |
| BJS v BJT | Unknown | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 41 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the requirement of ordinary use would not be satisfied if the parties’ use of the property was occasional or casual. |
| Ryan Neil John v Berger Rosaline | Unknown | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR(R) 647 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that staying in a property for no more than 21 days out of 14 years of marriage is casual residence, not ordinary use of the property. |
| UYP v UYQ | Unknown | Yes | [2020] 3 SLR 683 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Husband’s original pre-marriage moneys, if any, were co-mingled with other funds which were matrimonial assets and were “no longer separately identifiable” |
| UZN v UZM | Unknown | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 426 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an adverse inference may be drawn for a failure to fully and frankly disclose one’s assets and means. |
| ANJ v ANK | Unknown | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 1043 | Singapore | Cited for the structured approach in dividing matrimonial assets. |
| BPC v BPB | Unknown | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 608 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the sum notionally added into the pool of matrimonial assets would not be credited to the Husband as his direct contribution because it arose from an adverse inference. |
| Chan Tin Sun v Fong Quay Sim | Unknown | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 195 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a negative value of 7% was ascribed to the wife’s indirect contributions due to her rather extreme misconduct in systematically poisoning the husband for at least one year. |
| Pang Rosaline v Chan Kong Chin | Unknown | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR 935 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the engagement of a domestic helper did not detract from each party’s contributions to managing the household as a whole. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 112 of the Women’s Charter | Singapore |
| Section 112(10) of the Women’s Charter | Singapore |
| Section 112(10)(a) of the Women’s Charter | Singapore |
| Section 112(10)(a)(i) of the Women’s Charter | Singapore |
| Section 112(10)(a)(ii) of the Women’s Charter | Singapore |
| Section 112(10)(b) of the Women’s Charter | Singapore |
| Section 112(2)(e) of the Women’s Charter | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Matrimonial Assets
- Pre-Nuptial Agreement
- Pre-Marital Assets
- Gifts
- Inheritance
- Adverse Inference
- Direct Contribution
- Indirect Contribution
- Ordinary Use
- Substantial Improvement
- Commingling
- Transformation
15.2 Keywords
- divorce
- matrimonial assets
- division of assets
- family law
- pre-nuptial agreement
- Singapore
- Women's Charter
- ancillary matters
- pre-marital assets
- gifts
- inheritance
16. Subjects
- Family Law
- Divorce
- Matrimonial Assets
- Division of Assets
- Pre-Nuptial Agreements
17. Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Matrimonial Assets
- Division of Matrimonial Assets