Tan Yen Chuan (m.w.) v Lim Theam Siew [2014] SGHC 110

Outcome: Orders made

Facts

1 The issues before the High Court included the division of matrimonial assets and maintenance for the Wife. At the time of the hearing, the Husband was 61 years old and unemployed, having retired from his job in 2012 where his last drawn monthly salary was $15,670. The Wife was 59 years old and employed.

Court’s Decision:

2 The Husband was ordered to pay the Wife $285,000 and 40% of the sale proceeds of the matrimonial home, as her share of the matrimonial assets. Lump sum maintenance of $370,440 ($2,205 per month over a period of 14 years) was awarded to the Wife.

3 Under s 114(1) of the Women’s Charter, although the standard of living enjoyed by the family prior to the breakdown of the marriage is a relevant consideration, other factors such as the age of each party to the marriage, and the financial responsibilities which each party has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future, should also be taken into account: at [76].

4 A former wife’s ability to work should not be counted against her – if she is able to draw a salary to support herself, this should not affect whether she deserves maintenance, but rather, how much more might be necessary to place her in a financial position that is just in the circumstances (see s 114(2) of the Women’s Charter): at [77].

5 The formula for determining the number of years that monthly maintenance should be paid for, in calculating the quantum of lump sum maintenance, is as follows: (at [80] and [81])

[(Average life expectancy of a Singapore woman + usual retirement age of a Singapore male worker) /2] - wife's present age

6 In addition, courts can and have considered the benefits of lump sum maintenance and the former wife’s ability to provide for herself, in fixing (or discounting) the number of years of maintenance that should be awarded. Parties’ respective ages (which affect their potential earning capacities), and the former husband’s ability to pay, are also relevant factors. All things being equal, a larger discount would be justified for a younger wife who would be able to expect to find gainful employment more easily: at [84] and [86].

The full text of the decision can be found here.

This summary is provided to assist the public to have a better understanding of the Court’s judgment. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s judgment.