The court affirmed its jurisdiction over divorce proceedings involving Malaysian citizens and validated the service of the Divorce Petition via electronic means, highlighting the importance of effective notification in legal processes.

Evrol Mariette Peters J:

Introduction

[1] This was an application ("this Application") by the Respondent-Wife in enclosure 17 to, among others, set aside the court order which had granted the Petitioner-Husband leave to serve the Divorce Petition and the relevant cause papers ("the Divorce Petition") out of jurisdiction; to set aside service of the Divorce Petition on the basis that the same had not been duly served on the Respondent-Wife; and a declaration that this court has no jurisdiction over the Respondent-Wife in respect of the divorce proceedings.

[2] To protect the privacy of the parties, and due to the sensitive nature of the issues involved, the Petitioner-Husband and Respondent-Wife have been anonymised in this judgment as HAT and PAT, respectively, whilst the children of the marriage have been anonymised as JAN, XAN and NAN respectively.

The Factual Background

[3] The Petitioner and Respondent (collectively, "the Parties"), both Malaysian citizens, aged 55 and 41 respectively at the time of the hearing of this Application, were married in 2001 in Miri, Sarawak.

[4] In 2004, the Parties moved to Australia, where the Children were born. In 2005, a daughter was born to the Parties, and in 2007, the Parties became parents to twins, a boy and a girl (collectively, "the Children"). In 2008, the family relocated to Singapore. However, in 2011, the Petitioner returned to Malaysia to manage his businesses.

[5] In August 2023, the Respondent filed for divorce in the Family Justice Courts of Singapore. In October 2023, the Petitioner filed for judicial separation in the Kuala Lumpur High court, but withdrew the application in December 2023, opting to file instead, the Divorce Petition.

[6] The Petitioner then filed an application for a stay of the divorce proceedings in Singapore, whilst the Respondent filed an application for an anti-suit injunction in Singapore ("the Anti-Suit Injunction Application") against the Petitioner. Both applications were dismissed by the Singapore court.

[7] In January 2024, the Petitioner was granted leave by this court to issue a Notice of Divorce Petition and to serve it out of jurisdiction via personal service, prepaid registered post, email, or WhatsApp ("the court Order").

[8] In February 2024, the Respondent filed this Application.

The Issues

[9] The issues for this court to address were (a) whether the court Order directing service of the Divorce Petition on the Respondent was contrary to the law of Singapore; (b) whether service of the Divorce Petition was in accordance with the law of Singapore, and if not, whether it should be set aside; (c) whether the Singapore court had jurisdiction to hear the divorce proceedings; and (d) whether Singapore was the proper forum to hear the divorce proceedings.

[10] This Application was dismissed with costs for the following reasons.

Contentions, Evaluation, And Findings

Whether The court Order Directing Service Of The Divorce Petition On The Respondent Was Contrary To The Law Of Singapore

[11] The court Order was granted to the Petitioner pursuant to r 87 of the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980 ("Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules") and O 11 of the Rules of 2012 ("Rules of "), both of which read:

Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980

Rule 87 -

(1) Any document in matrimonial proceedings may be served out of Malaysia—

(a) where the proceedings are pending in the High court, in accordance with RHC O 11 rr 5 and 6 (service of a writ abroad); or

...

Rules of 2012

Order 11 -

Rule 5 -

(1) Subject to the following provisions of this rule, O 10, r 1 and O 62, r 5 shall apply in relation to the service of a notice of a writ notwithstanding that the notice is to be served out of the jurisdiction.

(2) Nothing in this rule or in any order or direction of the court made pursuant to r 5(1) shall authorize or require the doing of anything in a country in which service is to be effected which is contrary to the law of that country.

(3) A notice of a writ