[2013] SGHC 50

“1C Mayfield in 2004. He submitted that they lived in Casuarina Cove as their matrimonial home, and highlighted that Casuarina Cove was their intended matrimonial home. The Husband relied on BGT v BGU [2013] SGHC 50 (“BGT v BGU”), which (at [28]) offered a negative answer to the question of whether a property transforme”

“BGT v BGU [2013] SGHC 50 (“BGT v BGU”) was a case where, shortly before the marriage in 1995, the husband bought an apartment unit in his sole name. After the marriage, the parties lived in this apartment until 2001 when the”

“This principle has since been applied in a series of subsequent decisions of the High Court: see Yong Shao Keat v Foo Jock Khim [2012] SGHC 107 at [10], BGT v BGU [2013] SGHC 50 at [40]–[41] and AZZ v BAA [2016] SGHC 44 (“AZZ v BAA”) at [140].”

“I agree with the Husband that the Pre-Marriage Properties cannot be excluded entirely from the matrimonial pool. Apart from BHN v BHO and THL v THM, the decisions of BGT v BGU [2013] SGHC 50 and UJF v UJG [2018] SGHCF 1 (“UJF v UJG”) also support the proposition that, in the context of s 112(10) of the Women’s Charter,”

“e pool of matrimonial assets an asset which would otherwise have fallen within that pool, but “[t]his is a power that is used very sparingly by the court and only in special circumstances”: BGT v BGU [2013] SGHC 50 at [34]. An example is the case of Ong Boon Huat Samuel v Chan Mei Lan Kristine [2007] 2 SLR(R) 729 (“Ong”