21.01.2015 Views

View Article - Singapore Academy of Law

View Article - Singapore Academy of Law

View Article - Singapore Academy of Law

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

244<br />

<strong>Singapore</strong> <strong>Academy</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Law</strong> Journal (2003)<br />

III Why the 3 rd party did not obtain security for the<br />

debt/Relationship between 3 rd party and the husband<br />

and/or wife<br />

58 If the 3 rd party is a commercial institution and did not obtain<br />

security for the debt, then there is no reason why the court should put<br />

him in the position <strong>of</strong> a secured creditor, as he has not bothered to look<br />

after his own interests, in this regard. It is submitted that the court would<br />

be less reluctant to make the repayment order in respect <strong>of</strong> a 3 rd party<br />

who is an individual, and who seems to have given the loan for reasons<br />

<strong>of</strong> love and affection (for example, the 3 rd party is a close family member<br />

<strong>of</strong> either the husband and wife). This is because the 3 rd party individual<br />

could not have taken the same steps as a commercial creditor to protect<br />

his interests.<br />

IV<br />

V<br />

VI<br />

Hardship to the family if the repayment order is made<br />

Hardship to the 3 rd party if no repayment order is made<br />

Size <strong>of</strong> the debt<br />

59 If there are sufficient matrimonial assets to discharge the debt as<br />

well as to divide between the parties, then the court would be less<br />

reluctant to make the repayment order<br />

VII<br />

Lack <strong>of</strong> full and frank disclosure<br />

60 If the court holds that a party (who has incurred the debt) has<br />

refused to make full and frank disclosure, it may infer that he has<br />

sufficient assets from which to satisfy the debt, and therefore not be<br />

inclined to make the repayment order. As the court in Rayney v Spencer 49<br />

had opined, “The underlying policy in the Charter is not to allow the<br />

husband to deprive the wife and children by diminishing his assets.”<br />

61 Admittedly, the balancing exercise that the court has to<br />

undertake is a difficult one, as each case would turn on its own facts. It is<br />

also not possible to state with any precision the weight that is to be given<br />

to each factor. In this regard, it should be noted that Harman v<br />

Glencross, supra, was cited in Rayney v Spencer, supra, in the context <strong>of</strong><br />

the court’s observation that: “The English courts’ attempts to balance the<br />

49 [1995] 2 SLR 153

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!