Court of Appeal finds 2011 marriage of convenience valid, wife stands to inherit half of late husband’s estate

Mr Cheng fell terminally ill with cancer and died less than a year after the marriage.

Ms Dang provided no support and made no contact with his family, remaining entirely absent during Mr Cheng’s hospitalisation.

Mr Cheng also made no mention of her, even on his deathbed, the judgment read.

He died intestate, or without a valid will, in January 2012.

His assets primarily comprise his 14 per cent share in a Housing Board flat and money in his Central Provident Fund (CPF).

The family learnt of the marriage to Ms Dang through a letter in March 2012 from the Insolvency and Public Trustee’s Office (IPTO).

The letter informed them that Ms Dang was entitled to a portion of Mr Cheng’s CPF monies, as his wife.

The family had no information about Ms Dang and IPTO placed a notice in The Straits Times to seek information on Ms Dang and her whereabouts, but no such information could be obtained.

The family was later informed by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority in July 2024 that Ms Dang had been deported for immigration offences in 2011.

Mr Cheng’s son, Mr Cheng Tze Tzuen, in October 2024 sought a declaration that the marriage was void as it was a sham marriage or a marriage of convenience.

He wanted to exclude Ms Dang from any share in his father’s estate.

When his application failed due to the lack of legal basis in the Women’s Charter to declare such a marriage void, he lodged an appeal.

APPEAL COURT FINDINGS

Two of the judges who heard the appeal, Justices Ang and Ong, found that the court cannot declare a marriage void on a ground other than those provided for in the Women’s Charter.

These grounds do not include annulling a marriage because it is entered into with motives some might consider improper.

The Women’s Charter clearly sets out the public policy from Oct 1, 2016 onwards, but nothing suggested that this was also the policy before that date, the judges found.

The criminalisation of acts arising from marriages of convenience does not on its own affect the validity of the marriage itself, they found.

They dismissed the appeal, saying there was no basis for declaring the marriage void.

However, the court made no ruling on the administration or distribution of the deceased’s estate, as those issues were not part of the appeal.

In a minority decision, Chief Justice Menon said that the marriage between Mr Cheng and Ms Dang should be declared void, because it was not solemnised on the authority of a valid marriage licence within the meaning of the Women’s Charter 2020.

He said he would have allowed the appeal and declared that the marriage was void because it was not solemnised on the authority of a valid marriage licence within the meaning provided for in the Women’s Charter 2009.

However, because his view was in the minority, the appeal was dismissed.