[2013] SGHC 91

“ined the pension scheme one year before parties married, this asset was acquired throughout the duration of the marriage and “‘acquisition’ continues until the asset is fully acquired” (see BHN v BHO [2013] SGHC 91 at [36], citing Chee Kok Choon v Sern Kuang Eng [2005] 4 MLJ 461 at [9]).”

“y payments and contributions after marriage. That to my mind would count as acquisition, and such assets would be part of the matrimonial pool under s 112(10)(b) of the Women’s Charter (see BHN v BHO [2013] SGHC 91 at [36]; THL v THM [2015] SGHCF 11 at [40]). However, for such acquisition, the court should not take the”

“eaning of s 112(10)(b) of the Women’s Charter. This is because the Wife had continued to pay mortgage instalments for these properties during the marriage. In this regard, the Husband cites BHN v BHO [2013] SGHC 91 (“BHN v BHO”) and THL v THM [2015] SGHCF 11 (“THL v THM”) as authorities for the proposition that a prope”

“(b) Courts have interpreted the word “acquired” in s 112(10)(b) as referring not merely to the point of purchase of an asset, but to the entire course of its acquisition. See, for instance, BHN v BHO [2013] SGHC 91 (“BHN”) at [36] where the court accepted the following observations in Chee Kok Choon v Sern Kuang Eng [2”