Fight over $4m condo lands woman in jail for contempt of court in rare case

Disputes over properties are never pleasant, but an embittered woman took it further by refusing to recognise a court decision that declared she had lost her case, until she ended up in jail for two weeks.

Despite being ordered by the court to surrender a $4 million apartment that was bought with money from her former lover, she would not budge, steadfastly refusing to sign the transfer document or hand over the certificate of title.

As a result, the man had to go to court again to seek a fresh application for the court to transfer the D’Leedon apartment, off Farrer Road, back to him.

Even after the property was eventually transferred back to its rightful owner with the court’s intervention, she refused to give in and made a last-ditch foolish attempt to stake a claim on it by filing a caveat, or legal notice, on the apartment.

While the caveat had no effect on the transaction as the court-sanctioned transfer was already completed, her antic proved to be the straw that broke the camel’s back, prompting her former lover to retaliate with a contempt-of-court action.

There have been cases involving spouses who spent time in jail for not paying court-ordered maintenance, but it is rare for someone to fight over assets to the point of refusing to obey court orders until they themselves end up behind bars.

There are also those who run up huge debts fighting a judgment and ending up as a bankrupt, but this case takes the cake because the woman was well-off and had the means to end the dispute amicably, yet stubbornly refused to do so.

How it all began

This passionate love story-turned-nightmare began in 2016 after the then married man, who had sold his business for about $15 million, met the woman, a single parent with four children, at a conference.

The couple, who are foreigners, soon planned to make Singapore their home by marrying and building a life together.

The man, who divorced his wife, later transferred $7 million to his lover who used the money to buy an apartment, a shophouse and a car, and pay for a host of other expenses.

But their relationship deteriorated severely some time in 2018, before ending in 2019, after the man was arrested when she filed a complaint against him. He later sued her for the return of his money and assets that were bought with his money.

When their case came before High Court Judge Philip Jeyaretnam, he said: “Their love burned hot and fast, dying out before they could marry as they had vowed to do. This court is left to rake through the ashes to decide what belongs to each of them as they part ways.”

The judge found that the man had not transferred the money as a gift to his ex-lover because it was supposed to be used for their new household as husband and wife. With their relationship in tatters, he ruled that the man was entitled to claim for the return of his assets according to established rules of property law that favoured him since he had paid for everything.

The woman was ordered to return the $4 million apartment, the car and 80 per cent of the shophouse, as well as about $900,000 that she had spent.

The saga dragged on

Despite the court order, the woman did not take any steps to comply with the instructions, even after she received a transfer form and demand letter from her ex-lover’s lawyers.

She even tried to prevent the transfer of the condominium unit by refusing to sign the transfer form or hand over its certificate of title.

It was not disclosed what happened to the shophouse, car and the sum of money due to the man because the attention appeared to focus on the apartment as it was the most expensive item.

When she refused to give up the property, the man returned to court to ask for a two-stage application – to either force her to transfer the property or have the transaction be approved by the court.

In the end, the transfer document was signed by a court official, enabling the man to regain his property.

But this prompted the woman to make a last-ditch effort to try to regain the property by filling a caveat against it. The legal notice, which could easily be struck off as the transaction was approved by the court, only succeeded in driving her ex-lover to retaliate against her with a contempt-of-court action.

Seriousness in defying court orders

The High Court found the woman had defied its order when she refused to sign the form and hand over the certificate of title, as well as subsequently objecting to a replacement certificate.

But her filing of the caveat did not breach any order because by then, the property had already belonged to the man.

The court ruled that a one-month jail sentence was warranted in this case because her conduct was calculated to obstruct the order and, in doing so, undermine the administration of justice.

In particular, she understood what she was ordered to do but failed to do it. She also “aggravated matters by lying to the court in the contempt proceedings”.

When she came before Singapore’s highest court, Judge of the Court of Appeal Steven Chong noted that her conduct in obstructing the transfer of the property could not be viewed as reasonable by any measure.

He said this was not a case where the woman had delayed complying with the order by being unable to meet the deadline that was imposed on her.

“Instead, we were concerned with a stark case where no steps whatsoever were taken to facilitate the transfer. Indeed, (she) even took steps to stymie the transfer of the property,” he added.

Justice Chong noted that the order was clear and stated that she “shall immediately do all things necessary to transfer 100 per cent of her rights, title and interests in the property” to her ex-lover.

She not only did not do that, but she went on to commit a series of acts that were aimed at thwarting the property transfer.

Justice Chong said her conduct did not paint a picture of someone “who was confused or unable to comply with the terms of the order, but one who deliberately wanted to ensure that the purpose of the order would not be fulfilled”.

The caveat that she filed was also consistent with her intention to obstruct the transfer, he added.

Although the High Court found her application did not amount to an act of contempt because it did not prevent the transfer, Justice Chong said this could be viewed as part of her obstructive conduct to thwart the transfer of the property.

But he cut her one-month jail term to just two weeks to reflect the fact that the prejudice caused to the man was limited to some delay and additional costs incurred in the transfer, which was eventually approved by the court.

So the lesson here is simply this – if you are unable to take the risk of losing your case, you should always strive to reach an amicable settlement so that you don’t even need to go to court.

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

ADV: Sustainability Reporting for Legal Counsel Court imposes freezing order on Autobahn group companies, directors amid allegations of fraud and bad faith