Lee Mei-Chih v Chang Kuo-Yuan

JurisdictionSingapore
Judgment Date03 September 2012
Date03 September 2012
Docket NumberDivorce No 4945 of 2011
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Lee Mei-Chih
Plaintiff
and
Chang Kuo-Yuan
Defendant

Choo Han Teck J

Divorce No 4945 of 2011 (Registrar's Appeal Subordinate Courts No 56 of 2012)

High Court

Family Law—Matrimonial proceedings—Jurisdiction—Husband and wife not Singapore citizens and not domiciled in Singapore—Wife travelled out of Singapore on extended trips—Whether wife was habitually resident in Singapore for three years immediately preceding commencement of divorce proceedings—Section 93 (1) (b) Women's Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed)

The husband and the wife were not Singapore citizens. They were not domiciled in Singapore either. The wife petitioned for divorce in Singapore. The husband filed an application for the divorce proceedings to be dismissed on the ground that the Singapore courts did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter. The husband argued that the requirements under s 93 (1) (b)of the Women's Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) (‘the Women's Charter’) that at least one of the party to the marriage had to be ‘habitually resident in Singapore for ... three years immediately preceding the commencement of the proceedings’, were not satisfied out since: (a)he was never habitually resident in Singapore; and (b)the wife had travelled out of Singapore frequently during the three-year qualifying period, including an eight-month trip to Taiwan and a four-month trip to New Zealand. The district judge allowed the husband's application and dismissed the divorce proceedings. The wife appealed.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The phrase ‘habitually resident’ in s 93 (1) (b) of the Women's Charter was for all intents and purposes the same as the phrase ‘ordinarily resident’: at [5].

(2) The significance of the verb ‘habitually’ was that it recalled two necessary features mentioned in Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Lysaght[1928] AC 234, namely residence adopted voluntarily and for settled purposes. These requirements were fulfilled by the wife: at [6] and [7].

(3) In considering whether the time away had broken the ‘habitually resident’ requirement, the court had to consider not just the reason for being away, but also the length of time spent away. The total of about 12 months extended absence for both the Taiwan and New Zealand trips was substantial when viewed against the backdrop of the mandatory three-year Qualifying Period. The wife was therefore not habitually resident in Singapore for the Qualifying Period within the meaning of s 93 (1) (b)of the Women's Charter: at [8] and [9].

CIR v Lysaght [1928] AC 234 (folld)

Ikimi v Ikimi [2002] Fam 72; [2001] EWCA Civ 873 (folld)

Levene v CIR [1928] AC 217 (folld)

R v Barnet London Borough Council, Ex parte Nilish Shah [1983] 2 AC 309 (folld)

Women's Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) s 93 (1) (b) (consd)

Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 (c 45) (UK) s 5 (4)

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1949 (c 100) (UK) s 1

Matrimonial Causes Act 1950 (c 25) (UK) s 18

Matrimonial Causes Act 1965 (c 72) (UK) s 40

Sim Bock Eng and Lam Shen Lin (Wong Partnership LLP) for the plaintiff

L Kuppanchetti and Wong Kum Fu Vincent (ATMD Bird & Bird LLP) for the defendant.

Judgment reserved.

Choo Han Teck J

1 This is an appeal against the District Judge's decision dismissing Divorce Suit No 4945 of 2011 on the ground that the Singapore courts do not have jurisdiction to hear the matter. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • WJK v WJL
    • Singapore
    • Family Court (Singapore)
    • 22 December 2022
    ...features to the term “habitual residence” – it requires voluntary residence and a settled purpose. See Lee Mei-Chih v Chang Kuo-Yuan [2012] 4 SLR 1115. The Husband’s first argument that he was stuck in Singapore and prevented from returning to Indonesia because of COVID-19 appeared to there......
2 books & journal articles
  • Family Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2012, December 2012
    • 1 December 2012
    ...in Singapore for a period of 3 years immediately preceding the commencement of the proceedings. 16.2 Lee Mei-Chih v Chang Kuo-Yuan[2012] 4 SLR 1115 clarified the definition of ‘habitual residence’. In this case, the parties were not Singaporean citizens, nor were they domiciled in Singapore......
  • SINGAPORE'S BANKRUPTCY JURISDICTION AND THE ABSCONDING DEBTOR
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2016, December 2016
    • 1 December 2016
    ...for costs. 13Tjong Very Sumito v Chan Sing En[2011] 4 SLR 580 at [29]. 14Tjong Very Sumito v Chan Sing En[2011] 4 SLR 580 at [33]. 15[2012] 4 SLR 1115. 16 Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed. 17Lee Mei-Chih v Chang Kuo-Yuan[2012] 4 SLR 1115 at [6]. 18(1903) 19 TLR 203. 19In re Charles Bright(1903) 19 TLR ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT