AQD v AQE and another matter

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 12 April 2011
• Neutral Citation: [2011] SGHC 92
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Divorce No 5136 of 2010 (RAS No 211 of 2010) and Originating Summons (Family) No 229 of 2010 (RAS 212 of 2010)
• Year: 2011
• Published date: 28 April 2011
• Hearing Date: 30 March 2011
• Plaintiff Counsel: Bernice Loo Ming Nee (Allen & Gledhill LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: Wong Soo Chih (Ho, Wong & Partners)
• Subject Matter: Conflict of Laws,Family Law
• Citation: [2011] SGHC 92

Choo Han Teck J:

This is the defendant’s (“the wife”) appeal against the District Judge’s refusal to grant a stay of the parties’ divorce proceedings (“the divorce suit”), and proceedings regarding the parties’ children’s custody, care and control, and access (“the Originating Summons”).

The parties are English nationals who have been living in Singapore since 1991. They are not permanent residents of Singapore. They were married in 1994 and have a son aged 11 and a daughter aged 15. The son started attending a boarding school in England in September 2010. Prior to that, he lived and studied in Singapore. Currently, the daughter still resides and studies in Singapore. The wife intends to move to England with the daughter permanently in the middle of 2011. The husband intends to remain living in Singapore.

The plaintiff (“the husband”) first filed the Originating Summons regarding the children’s matters on 8 September 2010. The wife then filed a divorce suit in England on 10 September 2010. The husband subsequently filed the divorce suit in Singapore on 13 October 2010. The Originating Summons proceedings were concluded on 21 October 2010 when the Singapore court made its orders as to the children’s custody, care and control, and access. The court made an order for joint custody, with the wife having care and control of the children. The wife did not appeal against the order for joint custody.

The main issue in this appeal is whether the parties’ divorce action should be heard in England or Singapore. Whichever jurisdiction was to hear the divorce should also decide the ancillary matters, namely, the children’s matters, the division of matrimonial assets, and the maintenance of the former wife and children. That would be the fairest and most expeditious way of adjudicating the entire action. The distribution of judicial tasks across jurisdictions makes it less likely for either court to make just and equitable orders across the entire matter with confidence because cross-jurisdictional orders may result in conflict with each other. Hence, the jurisdiction which bears the greater connection to the matter as a whole should hear the both the divorce action and the ancillaries. In the present case, I consider there to be more and weightier connecting factors to England than Singapore.

First, the fact that the children’s matters have been substantively decided by the Singapore court should not prevent the wife from applying for a...