Back
2024 MarsdenLR 1646
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
TEO CHEE CHEONG – Appellant
Versus
CHIAM SIEW MOI – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-02(W)-1034-05/2021]
The court emphasized the discretionary power under Section 76 of the LRA for equitable division of assets, mandating consideration of contributions and needs while inclining towards equality in asset division.
Headnote:(A) Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 - Section 76 - Discretionary power of the High Court in dividing assets upon judicial separation - The High Court awarded RM87,774,567.52 to the petitioner wife, the highest award in a contested divorce or judicial separation case in the country. (Paras 2, 16, 80)
(B) The court found that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, and determined the division of assets based on contributions and needs of the parties, inclining towards equality of division. The court dismissed the cross-petition for divorce. (Paras 17, 55, 80)
Facts of the case:
The case involves a married couple, the petitioner wife and the respondent husband, who sought a judicial separation after nearly 19 years of marriage, during which they accumulated significant assets including properties and bank accounts. (Paras 1, 9, 16)
Findings of Court:
The High Court allowed the petition for judicial separation, ordered spousal and child maintenance, and divided the matrimonial assets, considering the contributions of both parties. (Paras 16, 80)
Issues: The main issues included the division of assets, the assessment of spousal and child maintenance, and the criteria for determining contributions and needs. (Paras 25, 80)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a fair and equitable division of assets, taking into account the contributions of both parties and the principle of equality in division, as mandated by Section 76 of the LRA. (Paras 76, 80)
Result: The High Court's judgment was varied, and the respondent was released from the obligation to pay monthly spousal maintenance due to the substantial division award to the petitioner. (Paras 90, 92)
JUDGMENT
A. Introduction
[1] This judgment concerns the High Court's discretionary power under s 76 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (LRA) to divide "assets" between a married couple whom the High Court had decreed a judicial separation (JS). For reasons which will be explained subsequently in this judgment, we have deliberately refrained from using the term "matrimonial assets".
[2] The striking feature of this case was the High Court's division of assets with a total value of RM87,774,567.52 [High Court's Division (Assets)] in favour of the petitioner wife (PW) against the respondent husband (RH). Learned counsel for both PW and RH had informed us that in terms of monetary value, the High Court's Division (Assets) is the highest award for any spouse in this country in a contested divorce or JS matter.
[3] When a draft of this judgment (Draft) was completed, the learned chairperson of this panel, Kamaludin bin Md. Said JCA, had retired. This Draft had been forwarded to Hashim bin Hamzah JCA who had expressed his agreement with the Draft.
B. Background
[4] RH works as a "Proprietary Day Trader" (PDT) with TA Securities Holdings Bhd (TASH). As a PDT:-
(1) RH has a fixed monthly salary of RM10,000.00; and
(2) RH earns commission from his trading in shares as a PDT.
[5] The PW was an air stewardess with the Malaysian Airlines (MAS) but resigned about 6 to 9 months after she started dating RH.
[6] The marriage of the PW and RH (Marriage) was registered on 18 January 1997 [Date (Marriage)].
[7] After the Date (Marriage):-
(1) PW and RH have two sons (2 Children), namely:-
(a) TJM is born on 5 June 1997; and
(b) TJT is born on 3 June 1999.
For obvious reasons, we have not named the 2 Children;
(2) PW started a beauty salon business in which RH had invested RM50,000.00. This business lasted for about a year. Thereafter:-
(a) PW did not work; and
(b) PW spent a substantial amount of time to:-
(i) socialize with her friends;
(ii) attend parties with her friends;
(iii) play mahjong with her friends; and
(iv) participate in karaoke competitions; and
(3) since the Marriage, PW and RH had a live-in domestic helper and driver. After the birth of TJT, the second son, PW and RH had two live-in domestic helpers.
[8] In October 1999, PW and RH (with their 2 Children) moved into their matrimonial home in Sierramas, Sungai Buloh, Selangor (Matrimonial Home). With regard to the Matrimonial Home:-
(1) the Matrimonial Home was built on a piece of land [Land (Matrimonial Home)] purchased by RH on 21 October 1993 at a price of RM434,000.00;
(2) RH paid a sum of RM2,492,131.00 for the construction of the Matrimonial Home [Construction Cost (Matrimonial Home)]; and
(3) both PW and RH have agreed that the value of the Matrimonial Home is RM5,500,000.00 which consisted of the following agreed values:-
(a) RM3,500,000.00 for the Land (Matrimonial Home); and
(b) RM2,000,000.00 for the house on the Land (Matrimonial Home) {Agreed Value [House (Matrimonial Home)]}.
[9] On 23 October 2015, while PW was staying in the Matrimonial Home with RH and their 2 Children, PW filed her JS petition (Petition) in the High Court.
[10] After the filing of the Petition, without RH's knowledge, PW left the Matrimonial Home with the 2 Children on 23 November 2015 [Date (PW Left Matrimonial Home)].
[11] The Marriage lasted for more than 18 years 10 months [Duration (Marriage)], from 18 January 1997 [Date (Marriage)] until 23 November 2015 [Date (PW Left Matrimonial Home)].
[12] On 20 August 2016, TJT went back to live with RH.
[13] At the time of the trial in this case (Trial), the 2 Children were pursuing tertiary education which was paid solely by RH.
C(1). Proceedings In High Court
[14] In the Petition, a cross-petition for a decree of divorce of the Marriage was filed by RH (Cross-Petition).
[15] The Trial took 28 days. Only PW and RH gave evidence. No other witness was called by PW and RH.
C(2). High Court's Judgment
[16] On 6 May 2021 [Date (High Court's Judgment)], the le
