Didier Von Daniken v Sanaa Von Daniken Born El Kolaly

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Khoo Oon Soo
• Judgment Date: 05 April 2005
• Neutral Citation: [2005] SGDC 80
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 26 May 2005
• Year: 2005
• Plaintiff Counsel: Suresh Nair with Bernice Loo (Allen and Gledhill)
• Defendant Counsel: Tan Chee Kiong (Seah Ng and Partner)
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Domicile,Requirement for matrimonial jurisdiction,Petitioner a Swiss national posted to Singapore by employer,Petitioner enrolling children in a Swiss school, owning membership of Swiss Club, having no properties in Singapore, and having salary paid into Swiss bank account,Whether Petitioner domiciled in Singapore,Section 93 Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed)
• Citation: [2005] SGDC 80

5 April 2005

District Judge Khoo Oon Soo:

Background

1 The Petitioner, a Swiss national, met the Respondent, an Egyptian, in Dubai in 1996. She was then an air stewardess with Emirates Airlines. Both subsequently married in Zurich on 20 August 1999. Their first child was born in Zurich in 2001. Then sometime in 2002, Petitioner was offered a position in the Singapore branch of his bank, Credit Suisse, for a period of 3 years. He accepted the offer and they came to Singapore on 8 August 2002. He is now the Head of the Singapore branch.

2 In Singapore, they stayed in a rented house at 18A,Yarwood Avenue. Their second child (a son) was born in Singapore on 21 January 2003. He was registered as a Swiss Citizen. The marriage then broke down. The Respondent and their 2 children subsequently left Singapore on 10 September 2004.

3 Earlier, on 7 July 2004, the Petitioner was granted Permanent Residence by the Singapore Government. Entry Permit was granted on 1 September 2004.

4 The Petitioner filed for divorce on 4 September 2004 as the marriage has broken down irretrievably due to the Respondent’s unreasonable behaviour. The Petition was served on the Respondent on 9 September 2004.

5 The Respondent subsequently took out SIC 15904/2004 on 24 September 2004 to strike out this Divorce Petition on the ground that the Singapore Courts did not have jurisdiction as the Petitioner did not have domicile here. Her application was granted by the learned Deputy Registrar on 27 October 2004. Being dissatisfied with that decision, the Petitioner filed an appeal which came before me on 8 December 2004..

6 In my view, this is a rather straightforward case. The law relating to domicile is by and large not disputed. The case turns on the weight to be placed on the evidence available. The issue, therefore, is whether the Petitioner has, on the evidence before me, acquired Singapore domicile as a domicile of choice.

The Law

7 To acquire domicile of choice, these 2 elements must be satisfied:-

a. Fact of residence;

b. Fact of intention of permanent or indefinite residence

(See Dicey and Morris Rule 10 – (Tab 1 of Petitioner’s Bundle of Authorities at page 117). See also Wong Phui Lun Joseph v Yeoh Loon Goik [1978] 1MLJ 236 (Tab 5 ibid)

8 The Petitioner has to prove he has acquired Singapore domicile and the burden of proof is more than a balance of probabilities. See Wong Phui Lan Joseph”s case.

9 In substance, the evidence must show there was no contingency plan to return to Switzerland in which case the Swiss domicile remains, that Petitioner has abandoned Swiss domicile and that he has cut links with Switzerland.

Petitioner’s submissions

10 Learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to their earlier written submissions before the learned Deputy Registrar and Petitioner’s affidavits filed particularly that on 8 October 2004.

11 The Petitioner gave several reasons to show that he has acquired Singapore domicile. Before me Learned Petitioner’s Counsel emphasized these material evidence:-

(a) He and his family had uprooted from Zurich to come to Singapore.

(b) He has been in Singapore for 27 months to date.

(c) Their second child was born in Singapore on 21 January 2003.

(d) He hopes to live in Singapore.

(e) His contract and, therefore, his stay in Singapore is likely to be extended as evidenced by the bank’s letter of 18 October 2004.

(f) He treats Singapore as his home even if he were to be posted elsewhere.

(g) He wants his children to be brought up here.

(h) He has Singapore Permanent Residence now.

(i) He has little links with Switzerland.

Respondent’s submissions

12 On behalf of the Respondent learned counsel submitted these reasons to show Petitioner did not discharge his burden of proof:-

(a) The Respondent came to Singapore because of his job. He was posted here by his bank. He has to leave Singapore if posted elsewhere.

(b) Petitioner has not severed his links with Switzerland in that he has not joined any local clubs save for the...