[2007] SGCA 21

“ghlight that two requirements must be established by the party seeking to draw an adverse inference against the other in relation to, inter alia, undisclosed assets (see Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai Huah [2007] SGCA 21 (at [28]) and Chan Tin Sun v Fong Quay Sim [2015] 2 SLR 195(“Chan Tin Sun”) (at [62])):”

“ve failed to make full and frank disclosure a lower proportion of the known assets. However, a court would not draw an adverse inference against a party too readily (see Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai Huah [2007] SGCA 21 (“Koh Bee Choo”) at [30]). In order for an adverse inference to be drawn, it must be demonstrated that th”

“e case against the person against whom the inference is to be drawn, and that person must have had some particular access to the information he is said to be hiding: see Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai Huah [2007] SGCA 21 at [28] and Chan Tin Sun v Fong Quay Sim [2015] 2 SLR 195 at [62]. In AZZ v BAA [2016] SGHC 44 it was fur”

“draw adverse inferences against the other spouse for failure to give proper disclosure of their assets. The law on adverse inferences was discussed by Court of Appeal in Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai Huah [2007] SGCA 21 (“Koh Bee Choo”). In summary, for a court to draw an adverse inference, there must be (see Koh Bee Choo a”

“the orders made by the court below unless it can be demonstrated that it has committed an error of law or principle, or has failed to appreciate certain crucial facts” (Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai Huah [2007] SGCA 21 at [46]; see also ANJ at [42] and Tan Hwee Lee at [80]). In Lock Yeng Fun, we held (at [36]) that an appel”

“Generally, two requirements must be met for the court to draw an adverse inference (see Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai Huah [2007] SGCA 21 (at [28]) and Chan Tin Sun v Fong Quay Sim [2015] 2 SLR 195 (“Chan Tin Sun”) (at [62])):”

“re are two requirements which must be established by the party seeking to draw an adverse inference against the other in relation to, inter alia, undisclosed assets (see Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai Huah [2007] SGCA 21 at [28]; Chan Tin Sun v Fong Quay Sim [2015] 2 SLR 195 at [62]): (a) there must be a substratum of eviden”

“re are two requirements which must be established by the party seeking to draw an adverse inference against the other in relation to, inter alia, undisclosed assets (see Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai Huah [2007] SGCA 21 at [28]; Chan Tin Sun v Fong Quay Sim [2015] 2 SLR 195 at [62]): (a) there must be a substratum of eviden”

“In Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai Huah [2007] SGCA 21, we noted at [46] that “the division of matrimonial assets involves the sound application of judicial discretion by the judge of first instance rather than any rigid mathematical formulae”. Therefore”

“be a substratum of evidence that establishes a prima facie case because the court’s ability to draw an adverse inference cannot displace a party’s legal burden of proof: Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai Huah [2007] SGCA 21 at [28]; Chan Tin Sun v Fong Quay Sim [2015] 2 SLR 195 at [62]. As the Court of Appeal had held in Tribun”

“ainst the person against whom the inference is to be drawn; and (b) that person has some particular access to the information he is said to be concealing or withholding (Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai Huah [2007] SGCA 21 at [28]). As for the first of these requirements, there must be some evidence which suggests on its face”

“is no substratum of evidence that establishes a prima facie case against the other party that there are remaining assets which have not been disclosed to the court (see Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai Huah [2007] SGCA 21 at [28]). To the extent that any funds in the Husband’s UOB One Account and POSB Accounts had not been dis”

“In Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai Huah [2007] SGCA 21, it was stated that for a court to draw an adverse inference, there must first be some substratum of evidence establishing a prima facie case against the person against whom the inference is to be dr”

“the burden lies to prove that fact has first adduced prima facie evidence of the fact (Tribune Investment Trust Inc v Soosan Trading Co Ltd [2000] 2 SLR(R) 407 at [50]; Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai Huah [2007] SGCA 21 at [28]; Sudha Natrajan v The Bank of East Asia Ltd [2017] 1 SLR 141 (“Sudha”) at [20(c)]). In this passag”

“e being drawn from the withdrawal of significant sums of money during the course of the marriage: see, for example, BOR v BOS and another appeal [2018] SGCA 78 at [107], Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai Huah [2007] SGCA 21 at [31] and Shih Ching Chia James v Swee Tuan Kay [2002] SGCA 2 at [41]. It is important to recognise the”

“age shares. After all, it is well established that an appellate court will be slow to make minor adjustments for idiosyncratic reasons (see the decision of this court in Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai Huah [2007] SGCA 21 at [46]). It would, however, be prudent for the appellate court to expressly articulate its reason for de”

“idence which establishes a prima facie case against the other party and the other party must have some particular access to the information that is said to be concealed: Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai Huah [2007] SGCA 21 at [28]. What is disputed, however, is whether the DJ was correct in drawing an adverse inference in his”

“erence may only be drawn if there is evidence establishing a prima facie case against the Husband, and the Husband has access to the assets that he is said to be hiding: Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai Huah [2007] SGCA 21. The Wife’s argument for an adverse inference to be drawn is two-fold. First, she says that the Husband’s”

“n appellate court will seldom interfere in the orders made by the court below unless the court below has committed an error of law or failed to appreciate certain facts (Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai Huah [2007] SGCA 21 (“Koh Bee Choo”)); and in this case, the Husband argued that the DJ had done neither. In this connection,”

“(b) Second, that person had some particular access to the information he is said to be hiding (Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai Huah [2007] SGCA 21 at [28]).”

“is a presumption that the decision appealed against is correct (Lee Bee Kim Jennifer v Lim Yew Khang Cecil [2005] SGHC 209 at [14], cited with approval by this court in Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai Huah [2007] SGCA 21 at [46]), and it is incumbent on the husband to show why we should reject the finding made by the Judge.”

“The law on drawing adverse inferences was succinctly summarised by the Court of Appeal in Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai Huah [2007] SGCA 21 at [28] and followed in subsequent cases including BPC v BPB and another appeal [2019] 1 SLR 608. In order for the court to draw an adverse inference, there must be:”