View Article - Singapore Academy of Law

More documents

Recommendations

Info

226 Singapore Academy of Law Journal (2003) property but also the rights and interests of 3 rd parties who had intervened in the application 14 to claim an interest in the house: “It is fundamental to the s 24 jurisdiction that the judge should know over what property he is entitled to exercise his discretion. If there is a dispute between a respondent spouse and a third party as to the ownership of a particular item of property which stands in the respondent’s name, that dispute must be resolved before the judge can make an effective final order under s 24. There are only two ways of resolving such a dispute. Either the Family Division proceedings must be adjourned pending the trial of the claim in other proceedings, or the dispute must be decided in the s 24 proceedings by allowing the 3rd party to intervene. The latter course was adopted in the instant case. It has not been suggested, and I do not think it would be right to suggest, that the court had no jurisdiction to permit Mrs Tebbutt [the 3 rd party] to intervene. There could be no purpose in her intervention except to decide that dispute. I think that in a case like the present the Family Division has jurisdiction under s 24 to decide property rights.” (per Brightman LJ at page 245) (emphasis added) 14 The Singapore courts appeared to have adopted a similar approach, although they have not stated the jurisdictional position as explicitly as it has been stated in Tebbutt. In the Shi Fang case, supra, for example, the court at first instance (the High Court) held that shares in the husband’s name, but which were claimed by the husband’s father to belong to him, actually belonged to the husband. This aspect of the judgment was not appealed against by the husband. However, at the appeal hearing, the Court of Appeal expressed the view that the shares were in fact held on trust by the husband for the father—indicating that if this issue had been the subject matter of an appeal by the husband, the Court of Appeal would have had no reservations in dealing with the same. In the case of Audrey Lee Dawn, supra, the Family Court decided that the car purchased by the respondent husband’s father (worth $90,000 at the time of the ancillary matters hearing) and which he claimed to be his, actually belonged to the respondent husband. 15 In Yow 14 This case deals with 3 rd parties who had formally intervened to join the ancillary matters proceedings as parties. See Section 4 below for a discussion in respect of the scope of the court’s jurisdiction in relation to 3 rd parties who do not formally intervene to join the ancillary matters proceedings. 15 On appeal, the High Court accepted this finding, though it held that as the car was a gift by the respondent husband’s father to the responasdent, [continued next page]
15 SAcLJ Matrimonial Assets and the 3 rd Party 227 Mee Lan, supra, the Family Court found that half the money in two Malaysian bank accounts in the joint names of the respondent husband and his business partner (amounting to RM 349,837.58) belonged to the respondent husband. On appeal, the High Court held that the whole of this sum belonged to the respondent husband. In the case of Krygsman Juliet Angela (m.w.) v Lee Cung Meng Joseph, 16 the husband claimed that his stake in a property (Berwick Drive) owned with two of his sisters and a brother-in-law (purchased at the price of $1.44 million, and claimed by the husband not to have changed much in value at the time of the ancillary matters hearing) was only $14,400. The Family Court accepted the husband’s position in this respect. The Family Court’s decision in the division of the matrimonial assets was upheld by the High Court on appeal, including that aspect of its judgment dealing with the Berwick Drive property. 17 15 The cases cited above support the position that the Singapore courts are both willing and able to deal with 3 rd party issues when dealing with the ancillary matters, in the absence of any separate civil suit being filed regarding the said 3 rd party issues. 2.2 Family court’s jurisdiction to deal with 3 rd party issues involving amounts or claims of over $250,000 16 Under the Transfer Order, the Family Court was given the jurisdiction to hear and determine any proceedings under Part X of the Women’s Charter, regardless of the monetary amount involved, in respect of divorce petitions filed on or after 1 April 1996. It applies to all divorce petitions filed on or after 1 April 1996 and before 15 December 2003. Under the Second Transfer Order, the Family Court is given the jurisdiction to hear and determine any proceedings under Part X of the Women’s Charter, save for contested applications for the division of matrimonial assets where the gross value of the assets is asserted by any party to the proceedings to be $1.5 million or above, in respect of divorce petitions filed on or after 15 December 2003. Does this include 3 rd party issues which involve assets worth more than $250,000, since the jurisidictional limit of the District Court is $250,000 18 16 17 18 gift by the respondent husband’s father to the respondent, it was not a matrimonial asset available for division, as there had been no substantial improvement to the car by the wife or by the wife and husband together during the marriage. unreported, Divorce Petition 2123 of 1999 Lee Chung Meng Joseph v Krygsman [2001] 1 SLR 579 See Section 2(b) (Interpretation) Subordinate Courts Act (Cap. 321)
Page 1 and 2: 15 SAcLJ Matrimonial Assets and the
Page 7: 15 SAcLJ Matrimonial Assets and the
Page 59 and 60:
15 SAcLJ Matrimonial Assets and the
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87:
show all

View Article - Singapore Academy of Law

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?