THE High Court has awarded a woman a lump sum of A$72,000 (S$93,860) after she appealed against a district court's decision to grant her A$7,200 in maintenance following a divorce.
Justice Choo Han Teck made it clear in his judgment released yesterday that it would be a fairer sum. He awarded Ms Wakako Nakayama, 42, the amount based on a monthly maintenance of A$1,200 over five years.
The district court last year had awarded her a monthly maintenance of A$600 for one year.
Lawyers said the increased sum was an unusual one-off case, based on the particular circumstances and taking into account the period the couple had remained married. It is believed that in the general run of cases, the period considered is from the day of marriage to the day they separated.
District Judge Wong Sheng Kwai, in a decision last November, had explained in giving the lower amount that 'although the marriage subsisted legally for almost 10 years, on a balance of probabilities, I accepted the plaintiff's version that, in effect, the parties had lived separate lives after one year of marriage'.
Dr Teo E Shen had argued he remained married to Ms Nakayama for four years from 2001 to 2005 though they divorced after 10 years. The 35-year- old was a student in Brisbane when he married Ms Nakayama, who had then just completed a postgraduate course in business management in 2001.
They separated when Dr Teo returned to Singapore in 2005 and worked as a veterinary surgeon while she continued to work as a translator in Brisbane. Their split was based on the four-year separation period, which she did not contest.
In Brisbane, the couple, who did not have children, had lived in a flat owned by Dr Teo's parents and were spared the expense of accommodation to which one or both would have had to contribute, noted Justice Choo.
Ms Nakayama, through lawyer Sim Bock Eng, sought a lump sum maintenance of A$500,000 in the district court - understood to be based on the cost of getting a flat to live on her own in Brisbane. But Dr Teo's lawyer Gregory Fong countered that she deserved less as his client did not earn very much, the marriage was short and childless, and he withdrew a lot of his own money as alleged by Ms Nakayama because he was a frequent gambler at Marina Bay Sands.
It was also pointed out that her salary was enough to cover her expenses.
The district court had assessed that she would need A$1,200 a month to rent a one-room flat in lieu of living in his parents' flat after the split. It awarded her A$600 a month as she would have had to share the cost if the couple had rented a flat together. The judge also held the maintenance to run for a year to 'help her move on in life'.
She then filed an appeal in the High Court, which heard from both sides in February.
Justice Choo held a lump sum based on a minimum A$1,200 a month over a five-year period would be reasonable 'given that a clean break would be best in the case'.
He said the marriage was not as short as Dr Teo wanted the court to believe, pointing to his claims that Ms Nakayama used the parents' money, lived in their apartment and gained Australian permanent residency through marrying him.
Dr Teo is appealing against Justice Choo's four-paragraph judgment.
Justice Choo Han Teck made it clear in his judgment released yesterday that it would be a fairer sum. He awarded Ms Wakako Nakayama, 42, the amount based on a monthly maintenance of A$1,200 over five years.
The district court last year had awarded her a monthly maintenance of A$600 for one year.
Lawyers said the increased sum was an unusual one-off case, based on the particular circumstances and taking into account the period the couple had remained married. It is believed that in the general run of cases, the period considered is from the day of marriage to the day they separated.
District Judge Wong Sheng Kwai, in a decision last November, had explained in giving the lower amount that 'although the marriage subsisted legally for almost 10 years, on a balance of probabilities, I accepted the plaintiff's version that, in effect, the parties had lived separate lives after one year of marriage'.
Dr Teo E Shen had argued he remained married to Ms Nakayama for four years from 2001 to 2005 though they divorced after 10 years. The 35-year- old was a student in Brisbane when he married Ms Nakayama, who had then just completed a postgraduate course in business management in 2001.
They separated when Dr Teo returned to Singapore in 2005 and worked as a veterinary surgeon while she continued to work as a translator in Brisbane. Their split was based on the four-year separation period, which she did not contest.
In Brisbane, the couple, who did not have children, had lived in a flat owned by Dr Teo's parents and were spared the expense of accommodation to which one or both would have had to contribute, noted Justice Choo.
Ms Nakayama, through lawyer Sim Bock Eng, sought a lump sum maintenance of A$500,000 in the district court - understood to be based on the cost of getting a flat to live on her own in Brisbane. But Dr Teo's lawyer Gregory Fong countered that she deserved less as his client did not earn very much, the marriage was short and childless, and he withdrew a lot of his own money as alleged by Ms Nakayama because he was a frequent gambler at Marina Bay Sands.
It was also pointed out that her salary was enough to cover her expenses.
The district court had assessed that she would need A$1,200 a month to rent a one-room flat in lieu of living in his parents' flat after the split. It awarded her A$600 a month as she would have had to share the cost if the couple had rented a flat together. The judge also held the maintenance to run for a year to 'help her move on in life'.
She then filed an appeal in the High Court, which heard from both sides in February.
Justice Choo held a lump sum based on a minimum A$1,200 a month over a five-year period would be reasonable 'given that a clean break would be best in the case'.
He said the marriage was not as short as Dr Teo wanted the court to believe, pointing to his claims that Ms Nakayama used the parents' money, lived in their apartment and gained Australian permanent residency through marrying him.
Dr Teo is appealing against Justice Choo's four-paragraph judgment.
