XLV v XLW

Facts

The parties met in China in 2002 and moved to Singapore shortly afterwards, registering their marriage at the Chinese Embassy in Singapore on 31 October 2007. The husband became a Singapore citizen in 2014; the wife is a Chinese citizen and has been a Singapore permanent resident since 2009. Their two children, aged 14 and 11, have lived and studied in Singapore all their lives. The husband went to China for work in 2019, and the wife moved there in 2023.

The husband filed for divorce in Singapore (FC/D 4543/2023) on 21 September 2023. The wife applied to stay the proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens, arguing that China was the more appropriate forum. She also pursued matters in China, including a withdrawn marriage dispute, a gift contract claim against a woman she said had cohabited with the husband (in which a Beijing court on 24 December 2024 ordered the return of property worth RMB 452,119.50, now under appeal), and a community property division case fixed for hearing on 28 March 2025. The District Judge dismissed the stay application on 3 December 2024. The wife appealed in HCF/RAS 23/2024 and applied to admit fresh evidence about the Chinese proceedings; the husband also applied to admit fresh evidence about a $1,740,000 transfer by the wife from their joint account, though he withdrew his prayer for its return.

Issues

1. Whether either party's fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal
2. Whether China was clearly or distinctly a more appropriate forum than Singapore for the divorce under the Spiliada test
3. Whether the parallel proceedings in China, or alleged forum shopping by the husband, justified a stay

Holding

The High Court dismissed the wife's appeal, so the Singapore divorce proceedings were not stayed. It allowed her application to admit fresh evidence, dismissed the husband's application, granted the wife leave to file her Defence and Counterclaim within 14 days, and reserved costs if not agreed.

Reasoning

The wife's documents post-dated the decision below, appeared credible as official Chinese court or ministry documents, and were potentially material to whether there were parallel proceedings, so they could have a perceptible impact. The husband's bank statements could have been obtained for the hearing below, and neither they nor his later documents were shown to bear on the forum question.

Under Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460, the wife had to show another forum was clearly or distinctly more appropriate. The family had been based in Singapore for about two decades, bought a matrimonial flat and raised the children there, and the recent moves to China did not displace those ties. The children's dual citizenship was neutral but their habitual residence in Singapore weighed heavily; a single text message about returning to China did not show any plan to relocate. Both sides' Chinese law experts were of little help, but even assuming China could take jurisdiction over the children, Singapore was better placed to decide their welfare. Witnesses and assets were neutral factors: the husband would take part in his own proceedings, the alleged cohabitation was dealt with in the Chinese judgment, the companies in China had no proven value, and foreign assets can be dealt with through discovery in Singapore.

The pending appeal in the gift case could be taken into account when dividing assets, and the community property case was of unclear timing, nature and overlap. That the wife might gain compensation under Chinese law did not show forum shopping by the husband.

From the judgment