Yap Chai Ling and another v Hou Wa Yi
Judge | Chao Hick Tin JA |
Judgment Date | 05 July 2016 |
Neutral Citation | [2016] SGCA 39 |
Citation | [2016] SGCA 39 |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 172 of 2015 |
Published date | 15 November 2017 |
Hearing Date | 13 May 2016 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Koh Tien Hua and Yoon Min Joo (Harry Elias Partnership LLP) |
Date | 05 July 2016 |
Defendant Counsel | Dorothy Chai Li Li (Dorothy Chai Law Practice) |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Subject Matter | Issue estoppel,Divorce,Decree absolute and decree nisi,Family law,Conflict of laws,Res judicata,Recognition of foreign divorce judgment |
This is an unus ual and unfortunate case, notwithstanding the important point of law that arises. It is unusual because a decree
The applicants (“the Appellants”), who are seeking,
Against this backdrop, the issue which arises in this appeal is whether the Decree
We should pause to note – as we did at the outset of oral submissions before this court – that the issue with respect to recognition of the Shanghai divorce judgment is one of two main strings to the Appellants’ legal bow. The other main string is in the Appellants’ argument that the Decree
When faced with the difficulties with his clients’ case arising from Issue 2, Mr Koh then argued at the oral hearing –
Before proceeding to consider each of these issues
On 21 August 1991, the Husband, a Singapore citizen, married the Respondent, a Chinese national, and registered their marriage in Shanghai (“the Shanghai Ceremony”). The married couple subsequently moved to Singapore.
The Husband then applied for the marriage to be registered in Singapore. He had, however, overlooked the fact that at the time of his marriage to the Respondent in Shanghai, he was still legally married to his previous wife. The Husband married his previous wife in Singapore on 28 September 1959. At the time of the Shanghai Ceremony, he had only obtained a decree
On 1 June 1992, a decree absolute was granted dissolving the Husband’s previous marriage in Singapore. This paved the way for the Respondent’s return to Singapore. The Husband and the Respondent then solemnized and registered their marriage in Singapore on 30 September 1992 (“the Singapore Ceremony”). They lived in Singapore thereafter.
The divorce proceedingsUnfortunately, the marriage broke down. From July 2000 onwards, the Husband and the Respondent began living in separate rooms. On 25 April 2001, the Husband commenced, in Singapore, Divorce Petition No 601380 of 2001 seeking a dissolution of the marriage due to the Respondent’s unreasonable behaviour. This petition was contested by the Respondent and the Husband subsequently withdrew it on the understanding that they would proceed with the divorce on an uncontested basis. In November 2002, the Respondent left Singapore and returned to Shanghai for good.
The Shanghai divorce proceedingsOn 13 July 2004, the Husband commenced divorce proceedings in the Min Xing District People’s Court in Shanghai (“Shanghai first instance court”). The Respondent contested the proceedings on the basis that the marriage in Shanghai was null and void since the Husband was still legally married to his previous wife at the time of the Shanghai Ceremony. In addition, she took the position that divorce proceedings should be commenced in Singapore instead of Shanghai.
On 24 March 2004, the Shanghai first instance court ruled against the Respondent and granted the divorce (
Dissatisfied, the Respondent appealed against the Shanghai divorce judgment. On appeal, the Respondent argued substantially the same points while the Husband adopted the reasoning of the court below. She argued that by reason of the decree absolute, “the situation causing the marriage to be void was no longer in existence, thus the marriage registration of both parties in Shanghai had become a valid marriage”.
On 20 June 2005, the Shanghai No 1 Intermediate People’s Court (“the Shanghai appellate court”) dismissed the appeal. The Shanghai appellate court explained that the marriage law “stipulates that the People’s Court shall not grant an application for a declaration that a marriage is void when the situation causing the marriage to be void is no longer in existence at the time of the application”. Thus, the Shanghai appellate court held that the marriage in Shanghai, while invalid at its inception, became valid
Both at first instance and on appeal, the Husband and the Respondent stated that they did not want the Shanghai courts to divide the matrimonial assets. At a separate point in time afterwards, the Husband applied to the Chinese courts for division of the matrimonial assets. On 11 June 2006, the Chinese courts ordered a division of the Chinese assets only, leaving the Singapore assets untouched.
Singapore divorce proceedings On 20 May 2005, the Respondent filed Divorce Petition No 2201 of 2005 (“D 2201”), citing the Husband’s unreasonable behaviour as the reason for the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The Husband responded by filing a summons to strike out D 2201 but subsequently withdrew it. One year later, the Respondent amended the petition by deleting the reference to the Husband’s unreasonable behaviour. This time, she cited as the basis for the divorce the fact that she and the Husband had lived apart for a continuous period of at least four years prior to the filing of D 2201. Following this, the matter proceeded on an uncontested basis and the court granted the Decree
When the parties attended before a district judge for the hearing of the ancillary matters on 17 December 2007, the judge raised concerns over the effect of the Shanghai divorce judgment.
The Husband then filed two successive applications for a declaration that the Shanghai divorce judgment had dissolved the marriage and that D 2201 should therefore be struck out and the Decree
To continue reading
Request your trial-
UFN v UFM and another matter
...Issues in Family Law”) at paras 5.47 and 5.53, cited with approval by this Court in Yap Chai Ling and another v Hou Wai Yi [2016] 4 SLR 581 at [49]. Recognition may however be withheld if such recognition would be contrary to public policy: Ho Ah Chye v Hsinchieh Hsu Irene [1994] 1 SLR(R) 4......
-
WDK v WDL
...Charter also makes it clear that the rules of private international law apply in Singapore. In Yap Chai Ling and another v. Hou Wa Yi [2016] 4 SLR 581, the Court of Appeal found that recognising the foreign divorce would only require the Singapore courts to recognise that there was effectiv......
-
Conflict of Laws
...above. 40 [2016] SGHCR 8. 41 Shi Wen Yue v Shi Minjiu [2016] SGHCR 8 at [6]. 42 Shi Wen Yue v Shi Minjiu [2016] SGHCR 8 at [15]. 43 [2016] 4 SLR 581....
-
Family Law
...v ATZ [2016] 4 SLR 674 at [24]–[33]. 23 AUA v ATZ [2016] 4 SLR 674 at [31]. 24 (2015) 16 SAL Ann Rev 464 at 490. 25 [2016] 1 SLR 660. 26 [2016] 4 SLR 581. 27 Yap Chai Ling v Hou Wa Yi [2016] 4 SLR 581 at [45]. 28 Yap Chai Ling v Hou Wa Yi [2016] 4 SLR 581 at [49]. 29 Yap Chai Ling v Hou Wa ......