Safie bin Jantan v Zaiton bte Adom and another and another appeal [2023] SGHC(A) 8

Outcome: Appeals dismissed.

Facts

1           S and N married in 1985 and divorced in 2018. S then married Z in 2019. In 2015, on S’s request, Z handed S a cheque made out to “CPF” and a cashier’s order made out to “CPF BOARD” totalling $205,359.80 (the “Moneys”). S was still married to N at that time. S handed the cheque and cashier’s order to N, who deposited the Moneys into her Central Provident Fund (“CPF”) account on S’s instructions. N then withdrew $125,717.15 from her CPF account to repay the loan on their matrimonial home, a Housing and Development Board flat (“the Flat”).

2           Under the civil action, S was made personally liable to pay Z the sum of $205,359.80 as restitution for unjust enrichment. It was found that S and Z had shared a common intention for either to become the sole owner of the Flat in exchange for Z’s Moneys. Once the Moneys were handed over to S, the funds were at S’s free disposal and S was enriched. S’s choice to direct N to deposit the cashier’s orders into her CPF account did not detract from his enrichment. This enrichment was at Z’s expense and it was unjust as there was a failure of basis, since N was entitled to the Flat’s entire net sale proceeds following the divorce in 2018. Both S and Z appealed against this decision.

Court’s Decision:

3           A third party to the divorce proceedings can only pursue his or her purported interest in the Flat by way of independent civil proceedings.: at [8].

4           The Judge’s order that S was personally liable to pay Z the sum of $205,359.80 was a “risk” to S that eventualised as S did not take steps earlier to assert his claim that not the full equity in the Flat was a matrimonial asset. Instead of taking active steps in respect of his position on the Moneys, S was absent at the hearing on 4 December 2018 when the divorce decree and orders for division of assets were made. S did not file any documents in the divorce proceedings. He now has to account to the third party, Z, for the Moneys. The Syariah Court’s 2018 Order does not alter S’s personal obligation to Z.: at [14] and [15].

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.