The court established that Malaysia is the natural forum for divorce proceedings, emphasizing jurisdiction based on citizenship and domicile, while upholding the principle of comity.

Evrol Mariette Peters J:

Introduction

[1] This was an application ("this Application") by the Petitioner-Husband in encl 25 for an anti-suit injunction to, among others, restrain the Respondent-Wife from proceeding with the divorce proceedings in the Family Justice Courts of Singapore, and from enforcing any order obtained in the Singapore proceedings ("the Singapore Divorce Proceedings") with regard to the marriage between the parties.

[2] To protect the privacy of the parties concerned, 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. 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 initiated the Singapore Divorce Proceedings by filing for divorce in the Family Justice Courts of Singapore ("the Singapore Court "). In October 2023, the Petitioner filed for judicial separation in the Kuala Lumpur High Court ("the Judicial Separation"), but withdrew the application in December 2023, opting to file instead, a divorce petition ("the Divorce Petition").

[6] The Petitioner then filed an application in Singapore for a stay of the Singapore Divorce Proceedings ("the Singapore Stay Application"), whilst the Respondent filed an application, in Singapore, for an anti-suit injunction ("the Singapore Anti-Suit Injunction Application") against the Petitioner. Both applications were dismissed by the Singapore Court , and as a result, the Petitioner has appealed against the dismissal of the Singapore Stay Application.

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

[8] In February 2024, the Respondent filed an application in encl 17 ("the Respondent's Application to Set-Aside") to, inter alia, set aside service of the Divorce Petition on the basis that the same had not been duly served on the Respondent; and a declaration that this Court has no jurisdiction over the Respondent in respect of the divorce proceedings in Malaysia ("the Malaysian Divorce Proceedings"). The Respondent's Application to Set-Aside was dismissed. She has since then filed an appeal against that decision.

[9] In June 2024, this Application was filed.

The Issues

[10] In addressing the question of whether this Application should be allowed on its merits, the Court had to consider the following: (a) whether Malaysia is the natural forum to hear the divorce proceedings, including the issues of maintenance and property division between the Parties; (b) whether the Singapore Divorce Proceedings would be vexatious or oppressive to the Petitioner; and (c) whether allowing this Application would offend the principle of comity.

[11] At the outset, however, this Court had to address the issues of whether there was delay by the Petitioner in filing this Application; and whether the Petitioner had already submitted to the Singapore jurisdiction.

[12] This Application was allowed with costs, for the following reasons.

Contentions, Evaluation, And Findings

Whether There Was Delay By Petitioner In Filing This Application

[13] At the outset, the Court grappled with two fundamental questions regarding the Application, namely,