Back
2024 MarsdenLR 342
COURT OF APPEAL (PUTRAJAYA)
KAMALUDIN MD SAID, HASHIM HAMZAH, WONG KIAN KHEONG, JJ
Teo Chee Cheong – Plaintiff
Versus
Chiam Siew Moi – Defendant
CIVIL APPEAL NO W-02(W)-1034-05 OF 2021
The court emphasized equal division of assets acquired during marriage, requiring careful consideration of contributions, debts, and the needs of children, reinforcing the need for equitable outcomes in judicial separations.
Headnote:(A) Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 - Section 76 - Divorce and judicial separation - Division of assets - The High Court awarded the petitioner wife with a division of assets totaling RM87,774,567.52 in a significant judicial separation ruling, marking the highest award in a contested case within the country - The court emphasized the importance of both parties' contributions towards the family and the marriage in determining asset division, ultimately deciding on a ratio of 44:56 in favor of each spouse regarding various assets (Paras 1-3, 16, 19, 25, 37, 80).
(B) Discretionary Power of Court - Section 76 mandates courts to lean toward equality of division while considering contributions, debts, and children's needs - The High Court's findings included due consideration of the personal dynamics between the spouses and their respective financial situations (Paras 36-38, 42, 60, 61).
Facts of the case:
The case involved a long-term marriage characterized by economic disparities and different levels of financial contribution. The petitioner was initially employed but ceased working shortly after the marriage, while the respondent accrued substantial wealth via continuous trading. (Paras 4-12, 14-19).
Findings of Court:
The marriage was found irretrievably broken, leading to the court's decision to allow the petition for judicial separation, while dismissing the cross-petition for divorce (Paras 62-64).
Issues: The court had to determine how to appropriately divide assets acquired during the marriage, the burden of proof for asset claims, child and spousal maintenance obligations, and the legitimacy of expressing different division ratios for various asset categories (Paras 1, 25, 37-40).
Ratio Decidendi: The court ultimately found that the High Court appropriately employed its discretion under Section 76 while focusing on contributions towards joint welfare. However, several misapplications of law regarding asset evaluation warranted a recalibration of the division ratios (Paras 61-72).
Result: Appeals largely successful with some adjustments made to prior awards, no longer requiring spousal maintenance from the respondent (Paras 84, 90, 91).
[1]This judgment concerns the High Court’s discretionary power under s 76Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976LRA) 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 18.1.1997 [Date (Marriage)].
[7]After the Date (Marriage) -
(1)PW and RH have two sons (2 Children), namely -
(a)TJM is born on 5.6.1997; and
(b)TJT is born on 3.6.1999.
(2)For obvious reasons, we have not named the 2 Children;
(3)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
(4)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 21.10.1993 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 23.10.2015, 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 23.11.2015 [Date (PW Left Matrimonial Home)].
[11]The Marriage lasted for more than 18 years 10 months [Duration (Marriage)], from 18.1.1997 [Date (Marriage)] until 23.11.2015 [Date (PW Left Matrimonial Home)].
[12]On 20.8.2016, 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 6.5.2021 [Date (High Court’s Judgment)], the learned High Court Judge delivered the following judgment (High Court’s Judgment):
(1)the Petition (for a JS decree) was allowed;
(2)
