23 December, 2016
High Court held that automatic revocation by marriage of a CPF member’s nomination did not apply to a surviving party to a sham marriage
Soon Ah See v Diao Yanmei [2016] SGHC 185 (Singapore, High Court, 6 September 2016)
Soon Ah See & Anor v Diao Yanmei [2016] SGHC 185 raised the interesting questions of whether a marriage of convenience, or sham marriage, was a valid marriage under the Women’s Charter and if so, would such a marriage necessarily result in the automatic revocation of the deceased husband’s prior nomination under the Central Provident Fund Act (“CPF Act”).
The High Court held that the sham marriage at issue in this case was a valid marriage under the Women’s Charter, as amendments to the Women’s Charter on 1 October 2016 providing that a marriage of convenience would not be a valid marriage under that Act had not yet come into effect. Despite the validity of the marriage however, the Court held that the marriage in the present case did not automatically revoke the deceased’s prior CPF nomination in favour of the plaintiffs as it was not Parliament’s intention that the automatic revocation by marriage of a CPF member’s nomination pursuant to section 25(5)(a) of the CPF Act should apply to the surviving spouse of a sham marriage.
Our Comments/Analysis
Given the coming into effect of the amendments to the Women’s Charter on 1 October 2016, this case is likely to have limited effect or application. It is however a timely reminder as to the effects of section 25(5)(a) of the CPF Act. A CPF member’s nomination is revoked upon the marriage of the CPF member (except where the marriage is a sham).
Likewise, the will of a person is revoked by his or her marriage pursuant to section 13(1) of the Wills Act, unless the will is expressed to be made in contemplation of the marriage or unless the marriage is a sham.
It would be prudent for a person to review his or her estate planning at significant stages of his or her life, such as marriage. In most instances, a re-execution of the CPF nomination form or will should be considered upon marriage.
This Update looks at the High Court’s decision.
Background
Deceased’s CPF nomination revoked by his marriage to defendant
Family was not aware defendant existed
Proceedings commenced on basis that marriage was a sham On 5 January 2009, Soon Chwee Guan (the “deceased”) made a CPF nomination, nominating his two sisters (the “plaintiffs”) to receive his CPF monies in equal shares. However, following the deceased’s death in August 2013, the plaintiffs visited the CPF Board and discovered that the deceased’s nomination in their favour had been automatically revoked by the deceased’s marriage to the defendant, which had been registered on 12 October 2011. The marriage meant that the deceased’s CPF monies fell to be distributed in accordance with the Intestate Succession Act, which prescribes, inter alia, that one half of the intestate’s estate goes to the surviving spouse.
Neither the plaintiffs, nor anyone else in the deceased’s family, even knew about the existence of the defendant until after his death. The first plaintiff asserted that at all material times, the deceased had lived with their mother and the second plaintiff and at no time had the deceased made his family aware of the defendant or his marriage to her.
The plaintiffs were convinced that the marriage was a sham marriage and went to court to prevent the defendant from obtaining a share of the CPF monies. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the marriage between the defendant and the deceased was null and void, with the necessary consequential orders.
High Court
Was a sham marriage void under the Woman’s Charter?
The High Court agreed that the evidence clearly weighed in favour of a finding that the marriage in the present case was a sham marriage or marriage of convenience, which had only been entered into so that the defendant could live and work in Singapore. However, the Court held that a marriage was not void under the Women’s Charter just because it was not entered into with a genuine intention to live as a married couple. The Court was not persuaded by the plaintiffs’ argument that there was a lawful impediment to the marriage, which had the effect of rendering the marriage void under section 105 of the Women’s Charter. The fact that the parties had intended to enter into a sham marriage did not qualify as a lawful impediment to the marriage, notwithstanding that they might have breached other laws in the process.
However, the Court noted that it did appreciate the force of the countervailing policy concerns brought up by the plaintiffs. The Court noted that amendments to the Immigration Act in 2012 had made it an offence to enter into marriages for the purpose of illegally obtaining an immigration advantage. Further, Parliament had recently introduced amendments to the Women’s Charter, which specifically provided that a marriage of convenience would not be a valid marriage under the Women’s Charter.
However, as these amendments did not come into effect until 1 October 2016, they did not affect the present case. The Court observed that it was only on the introduction of these 2016 amendments that Parliament gave a clear sign that sham marriages should be void.
Amendments to the law providing that sham marriage invalid not yet in effect
Revocation of CPF Nomination
Revocation by marriage intended to assist immediate family Section 25(5)(a) of the CPF Act states that a CPF member’s nomination is revoked by marriage. If there is no valid nomination any CPF monies, which are not covered by a will, will be distributed in accordance with the intestacy laws for non-Muslims. The Court noted that the intention for providing for automatic revocation by marriage was explained during the second reading of the Central Provident Fund (Amendment No 2) Bill in 1978, making it clear that the legislative intervention was targeted at preventing a situation where the “immediate family” of a CPF member are left without financial provision due to the inadvertent failure of the member to update his nomination before his untimely demise.
The Court held that, quite clearly, a surviving partner in a marriage where there is no genuine marital relationship is not a member of the deceased’s “immediate family” and as such, the meaning of “marriage” in section 25(5 (a) of the CPF Act should be read down to exclude a marriage such as that in the present case. This would not go against Parliamentary intention.
In the present case, the defendant was by no stretch a member of the deceased’s immediate family and it followed that their marriage, while formally valid, was not the sort of marriage that fell within the meaning of “marriage” in section 25(5)(a) of the CPF Act. The Court granted the declaration that the nomination made by the deceased in favour of the plaintiffs had not been revoked and ordered that the CPF monies should be released to the plaintiffs.
For further information, please contact:
Bock Eng Sim, Partner, WongPartnership
bockeng.sim@wongpartnership.com
