Central Provident Fund Act 1953

“(iii) This order is made subject to the Central Provident Fund Act 1953 (“CPF Act”) and the subsidiary legislation made thereunder. The Board shall give effect to the terms of this order in accordance with the provisions of the CPF Act and the subsidiary legislation made”

“e for his daily expenses. It was unclear what amount (if any) would have to be refunded to the Husband’s CPF accounts to satisfy his CPF retirement sum obligations (if any) under section 15(6) of the Central Provident Fund Act 1953 (2020 Rev Ed), upon the sale of the Matrimonial Home. The Husband would also have to acq”

“e to execution absent clear and specific legislative promulgations to the contrary — with the clearest examples being s 51(6) of the Housing and Development Act (Cap 129, 2004 Rev Ed) and s 24 of the Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36, 2013 Rev Ed). If the judge-made common law adds to that list simply because of the a”

“m marriage is a valid marriage for the purpose of matrimonial jurisdiction, the question is whether it will necessarily result in the automatic revocation of the deceased’s prior nomination under the Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36, Rev Ed 2013) (“the CPF Act”). After due consideration, I answer the first question i”

“y interest, not creating one. That is why the charge imposed was not regarded by the court as a prohibited assignment, transfer, attachment, sequestration or levy within the meaning of s 25(1) of the Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36, 1991 Rev Ed), the substance of which has been retained in s 24(2) of the Central Pro”

“what ought to be done; Trusts] — [Constructive trusts; Trusts] — [Express Trusts] — [Certainty of intention; Trusts] — [Express Trusts] — [Constitution; Trusts] — [Express Trusts] — [Interaction with Central Provident Fund Act”

“These non-exclusory provisions may be contrasted with the position under s 51(6) of the Housing and Development Act (Cap 129, 2004 Rev Ed) and s 68(1) of the Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36, 2013 Rev Ed), which provide for express restrictions against the use of protected property and Central Provident Fund monies t”

“These appeals arose from the District Judge’s decision in [2018] SGDC 314. Jurong Country Club (“JCC”) was convicted of four charges under s 7(1) read with s 58(b) of the Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36, 2013 Rev Ed) (“CPFA”) at the close of its trial. JCC has appealed against its conviction and the Prosecution has”

“and Law of Property Act (Cap 61, 1994 Rev Ed) (“CLPA”). These provisions are relevant in determining whether the Defendant is entitled to the Deceased’s estate (under the ISA), CPF moneys (under the Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36, 2013 Rev Ed) (“CPF Act”)) and life insurance proceeds (under the CLPA).”

“igh Court’s decision in Public Prosecutor v Jurong Country Club and another appeal [2019] SGHC 150 (“Jurong Country Club”) to be instructive. In that case, the court considered whether s 58(b) of the Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36, 2013 Rev Ed) (“the CPFA”) imposed strict liability. Having considered at [100] that”

“own as K Saseedaran Nair) v Nalini d/o K N Ramachandran [2012] 2 SLR 365 is helpful. The husband in that case took up the Home Protection Insurance Scheme (“HPIS”) established pursuant to s 29 of the Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36, 2001 Rev Ed). The HPIS provided that in the event of the husband’s death or disabili”

“CPF Board”) was not a party to the divorce proceedings, but thereafter it applied to challenge the order for division of matrimonial property, contending that the order contravened a provision of the Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36, 1991 Rev Ed) (the “CPF Act”). The Court of Appeal held that there was no contraventi”

“lationship between the CPF Board and its members. In law, the CPF Board holds the credit balances in all of its members’ accounts as a single fund on a single trust for all members (see s 6(2) of the Central Provident Fund Act 1953 (2020 Rev Ed) (“the CPF Act”)).”

“The issue before me was whether the purported CPF nomination made in the circumstances of this case is a valid nomination under the Central Provident Fund Act 1953 (2020 Rev Ed) (the “CPF Act”). This case raised questions with respect to the legislative purpose behind the formality requirements for CPF nominations and”

“unctions in respect of Elcarim. Furthermore, Elcarim does not deny that Zhang was paid a salary and CPF contributions – such payments are only applicable to an employee as defined in section 2 of the Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36, 2013 Rev Ed).”

“hat the matrimonial home be transferred (other than by way of sale) to the Wife, with no refunds to be made to the Husband’s Central Provident Fund (“CPF”) account. This order was made subject to the Central Provident Fund Act 1953 (2020 Rev Ed) (the “CPF Act”) and the subsidiary legislation made thereunder in respect”

“(iv) these orders are made subject to the Central Provident Fund Act 1953 (2020 Rev Ed) and the subsidiary legislation made thereunder in respect of the Member’s CPF moneys, property and investments.”

“ey does not form part of a deceased’s estate and, where no CPF nomination is made, is managed by the CPF Board or the Public Trustee (the “PT”) pursuant to prevailing intestacy laws: see s 25A of the Central Provident Fund Act 1953 (2020 Rev Ed).”

“dy included in the matrimonial pool. Pursuant to the provisions of the Central Provident Fund Regulations (1998 Rev Ed), all contributions to the Fund payable by an employer under section 7(1) of the Central Provident Fund Act 1953 (2020 Rev Ed) (“CPF Act”) shall be paid to the CPF Board not later than 14 days after th”

“(f) These orders are made subject to the Central Provident Fund Act 1953 (2020 Rev Ed) and the subsidiary legislation made thereunder.”

“e Claimant’s position was that if it is found that any amount had been paid in error to the Claimant’s CPF, the limitation period for the Defendant’s claim has passed pursuant to section 71(4) of the Central Provident Fund Act 1953 read with section 5(1) of the Central Provident Fund (Refunds) Regulations 2019. Any cla”

“terest in the home is to be transferred to the Husband with no refunds made to the Wife’s CPF account and no cash consideration to be paid to the Wife. The Husband notes that pursuant to s 27E of the Central Provident Fund Act 1953 (2020 Rev Ed) (“CPF Act”), if the property is subsequently sold/disposed of, the Husband”