XQN v XQO

The husband and wife, both Singapore citizens, married in Singapore on 30 August 2019 and have two young children born in Singapore. The family emigrated to Canada in March 2022 and returned to Singapore in October 2023 for the birth of their daughter. The marriage broke down, the husband filed for divorce in Singapore, and interim judgment was entered by consent on 25 November 2024. The ancillary matters were still pending before the Family Justice Courts.

On 9 January 2025 the wife began proceedings in Ontario for orders on custody, care and control and maintenance of the children (the First Ontario Application). The husband applied in Summons 940 of 2025 for an anti-suit injunction, and the wife applied in Summons 1243 of 2025 to stay the Singapore divorce proceedings. A District Judge dismissed both on 22 August 2025. The wife then filed a second Ontario application on 29 August 2025 and obtained an interim parenting order on 1 October 2025 giving her sole decision-making responsibility and primary care. The husband appealed in Registrar's Appeal No 27 of 2025; the wife did not appeal.

1. Whether an anti-suit injunction should restrain the wife from continuing the First Ontario Application
2. Whether an injunction should restrain the wife from pursuing the Second Ontario Application, in which orders had already been made
3. Whether there was any basis to stay the Singapore proceedings

The court described anti-suit injunctions as extraordinary, granted only in clear cases where Singapore is the appropriate forum and a party is starting foreign proceedings to frustrate the local case or to forum shop. The First Ontario Application appeared not to have gone beyond filing, so restraining it would avoid conflicting decisions between the Ontario court and the Family Justice Courts.

The Second Ontario Application was different because the Ontario court had already issued orders. Under the doctrine of comity, the husband had to appeal or seek to set aside those orders in Ontario, arguing there that Singapore was the more appropriate forum; an injunction from Singapore was not the right remedy.

Comity did not mean surrendering jurisdiction, however. The wife had consented to the divorce and interim judgment, and Singapore was the appropriate forum for the remaining ancillary matters. An order on part of those matters abroad gave her no basis for a stay, and she had chosen not to appeal its refusal.

The High Court allowed the husband's appeal in part. It ordered the wife not to proceed further with the First Ontario Application, but upheld the dismissal of the injunction as regards the Second Ontario Application. Parties were to file costs submissions within 10 days.