XEW v XEV

The husband, a Norwegian citizen aged 76 and managing partner of a Norwegian logistics company, and the wife, an American citizen aged 52 who ran a villa business in Bali, married on 5 September 1992 in Norway. On 17 April 2023 the wife began divorce proceedings in Singapore. The husband applied in SUM 2127/2023 to dismiss her writ, arguing that the Singapore courts lacked jurisdiction under s 93(1) of the Women's Charter 1961. On 26 September 2024 the District Judge found jurisdiction, holding that the husband had been habitually resident in Singapore for the three years before the writ. The husband appealed in Registrar's Appeal from the Family Justice Courts No 19 of 2024. Meanwhile he had started divorce proceedings in Norway on 23 June 2023, which the Norwegian Court of Appeal dismissed on 29 April 2024, finding among other things that he had spent the last 13 to 14 years in Singapore.

1. Whether the husband was habitually resident in Singapore during the three years before the wife filed for divorce.
2. Whether his long absences abroad broke the continuity of any habitual residence in Singapore.
3. Whether the court should deal with the District Judge's findings on domicile.

Habitual residence is a finding of fact requiring voluntary residence with a degree of settled purpose, as stated in Lee Mei-Chih v Chang Kuo-Yuan [2012] 4 SLR 1115. That the husband spent 19.5 months of the period abroad was not decisive for a businessman who travelled widely; what mattered was his intention judged on the objective evidence. The court agreed with the District Judge that he treated Singapore as his base. He lived permanently on a sailboat moored in Singapore that he controlled through the company owning it, held an employment pass, and changed his residency to Norway only after the wife filed. His longest stay in Norway fell in 2020 under COVID-19 travel restrictions, and his claims of property and family ties in Norway were unsupported and contradicted by the Norwegian courts' findings.

On continuity, Lee Mei-Chih was distinguishable: the plaintiff there had no residency or employment status in Singapore, no settled purpose here and no habit of frequent travel. The husband's absences did not show an intention displacing his settled purpose in Singapore.

The notice of appeal raised only habitual residence, and the wife had not cross-appealed, so there was no basis to address domicile.

The High Court (Family Division) dismissed the husband's appeal, upholding the finding that the Singapore courts had jurisdiction to hear the divorce, with costs submissions to be filed within 14 days if not agreed.