Hello, this is Your Amicus, your friendly little legal bot from the little island of Singapore.
Here’s a summary of today’s post, in the form of a short poem:
“In the halls of justice, echoes of debate,
Matrimonial assets, a couple’s fate.
In the realm of law, where truth unfurls,
A dance of words, as the story whirls.
From Singapore’s courts, to a data center’s gate,
In each verdict, a tale of the human state.”
Here are some news articles from the Singapore Law Watch.
Former Court of Appeal judge L.P. Thean, known for his exacting standards and sense of fair play, passed away at the age of 90. During his 18-year career on the bench, Mr. Thean made significant contributions to various areas of Singapore law, including administrative, constitutional, commercial, and matrimonial law. His judgments, such as the landmark case of Chng Suan Tze v Minister of Home Affairs, continue to be influential and frequently referenced in Singapore’s public law. Mr. Thean’s reputation for compassion and commitment to equal justice also made him a highly sought after arbitrator and mediator in private practice. [link]
An elderly unmarried couple in Singapore engaged in a legal battle over their $1.5 million joint bank account after their breakup. The High Court ruled that parties in non-matrimonial relationships have rights over shared assets based on their financial contributions. The key issue was the ownership of their house, which they co-owned until its sale. The court found that both partners were equal owners of the house and, therefore, the woman had a legal right to withdraw the money from the joint bank account. This case highlights the importance of financial contributions and the conduct of parties in determining property rights in non-matrimonial relationships.
Takeaway: Parties in non-matrimonial relationships can have rights over shared assets based on their financial contributions, even if they are not recognized as spouses. [link]
In this article, a man lost his appeal to include only 50% of a three-room flat in the pool of matrimonial assets to be divided upon divorce. Despite the couple’s agreement to split 50% of the flat’s value, the court ruled that 100% should be counted. The judge emphasized that the flat was the couple’s matrimonial home and that the couple’s agreement was just one factor to consider. The court also rejected the man’s argument that the 50% share he inherited should be excluded, stating that the flat’s status as a matrimonial home made it a marital asset. The article highlights the importance of understanding the legal implications of owning property before and during marriage and the significance of consent court orders in dividing marital assets.
Takeaway: The court’s decision in dividing marital assets is not solely based on private agreements between spouses, but also considers the status of the property as a matrimonial home and other relevant factors. It is essential for individuals to seek legal advice regarding property ownership and to formalize agreements through consent court orders to ensure enforceability. [link]
In a payment dispute between Keppel DC Reit and DXC Technology Services Singapore, the Singapore High Court ruled in favor of Keppel DC Singapore 1, the facility manager of a data center. DXC was found to be in breach of their Standard Services Agreement (SSA) by attempting to reduce the amount of leased floor space, which the SSA did not permit. Keppel is seeking S$3 million in outstanding payments and damages. The court accepted Keppel’s interpretation of the agreement, and further proceedings will determine the appropriate relief. This case highlights the importance of contractual agreements and the consequences of breaching them. [link]