Deputy Registrar Nicole Loh:
Grounds of Decision
Parties are Chinese Nationals who were married on 9 November 1999 in Guangzhou. There are no children born to the marriage. The Plaintiff filed the Writ for Divorce on 24 May 2010 and on 24 September 2010, the Court granted an Interim Judgment to dissolve the marriage with Defendant’s consent. Parties are currently in the midst of their ancillary proceedings and Defendant filed Summons 14626 of 2011 to strike out the Plaintiff’s entire action. At the first summons hearing before me, Defendant applied to amend his summons to include a prayer to set aside the Interim Judgment that was granted on 24 September 2010. This amendment was allowed by consent.
Orders Made
I dismissed the Plaintiff’s application and granted the Defendant cost of $700.00. The Defendant has filed an appeal against the entire order.
Defendant’s Arguments
Defendant’s basis for his application is as follows (from Defendant’s written submissions): That parties are already divorced, by consent, at Yuexiu District People’s Court (hereinafter referred to as “the China Court”) and as such Singapore cannot grant another divorce order. That Singapore is not the right jurisdiction and does not have power to hear the ancillary matters of the divorce as marriage is dissolved by court of another jurisdiction.
I took the liberty of re-defining the issues as follows:- Whether the Interim Judgment granted by Singapore courts should be set aside if a foreign court subsequently grants an IJ and concludes the divorce proceedings. Whether Singapore Court has lost its jurisdiction or power to hear the ancillary matters Whether on basis of either of issue a or b, the court should strike out the entire divorce proceedings.
In the course of the submissions, Defendant also raised an issue that the Plaintiff was not habitually resident in Singapore for the preceding 3 years of filing the Writ.
Defendant heavily relied on case authorities and cited Weschler Mouantri Andree Marie Louise v Mouantri Karl-Michael and Another [2009] SGHC 83, Ho Ah Chye v Hsinchieh Hsu Irene [1994] 1 SLR(R) 485, VH v VI [2007] SGHC 221 and VH v VI [2009] SGDC 68 to show that it is established case law that a Singapore Court will not grant a divorce once a recognised foreign Court has granted a divorce since there is no subsisting marriage between parties for the Singapore Court to dissolve.
As a consequential argument, Defendant submits that if Singapore Court does not grant a divorce, then the Singapore Court does not have the ancillary powers to order maintenance and divide assets. Defendant cited Asha Maudgil v Suresh Kumar Gosain [1994] SGHC 144 and Ng Sui Wah Novina v Chandra Michael Setiawan [1992] 2 SLR 839 to support this.
Undisputed background facts
I set out below, the undisputed chronology of events between parties:
| |
|
|
| Date | Event | Remarks |
| 9 November 1999 | Parties married in China | |
| 14 May 2010 | Wife files for divorce in Singapore vide D2358/2010. | Jurisdiction in Singapore is based on 3 years’ habitual residence of both parties. |
| 17 May 2010 | Husband files for divorce in China (1st China Divorce Proceedings) | It was not disputed that the Husband filed this not knowing D2358/2010 was filed. |
| 31 May 2010 | Husband enters appearance in Singapore contesting D2358/2010 | |
| 11 June 2010 | Husband files a Defence to D2358/2010 challenging the fact of habitual residence of both parties and challenging jurisdiction. | |
| 23 June 2010 | Court in China dismisses 1st China Divorce Proceedings after trial | See pages 17 to 19 of Husband’s 1st affidavit for Summons |
| 3 August 2010 | Husband applied to withdraw the Defence and agreed to Wife’s claim for divorce in D2358/2010 | |
| 24 September 2010 | Singapore Court granted IJ by consent and adjourned the ancillary prayers to chambers | Based on Wife’s claim without any amendments |
| October 2010 to 22 March 2011 | Parties filed 2 ancillary affidavits each | |
| 17 March 2011 | China Court dissolves the marriage (through 2nd China Divorce Proceedings, filing date unknown) and records an order by consent for division of a gold ring and necklace in a Paper of Civil Mediation. | Pages 44 to 45 of the Husband’s 1st affidavit for Summons |
| 29 June 2011 to 13 July 2011 | Husband’s Singapore solicitor applied and obtained an order for discharge as solicitor | |
| 11 July 2011 | Wife filed her 3rd ancillary affidavit | |
| 23 August 2011 | Husband files Summons 14626 of 2011 | |
Defendant’s challenge to jurisdiction based on habitual residence
At the time when Singapore Courts granted the Interim Judgment on 24 September 2010, it was validly granted. The Defendant had withdrawn his Defence, which included the challenge to jurisdiction and had therefore he has accepted jurisdiction. At that point in time, there were no pending China proceedings (since the 1st China Divorce proceedings had been dismissed). It is an abuse of process for the Defendant to raise the issue of jurisdiction (in that Plaintiff was not habitually resident in Singapore) again after the Court had already determined on this. In any event, section 93(b) of the Women’s Charter states the Singapore Court has jurisdiction as long as one party was habitually resident in Singapore, which the Defendant himself clearly was.
Issue (a): Whether the Interim Judgment granted in Singapore on 24 September 2010 should be set aside because of the...
