Exchange Union Company and others v Wo Qi and others

Mr Wo Wei Dong, a PRC national, and three companies in what he says is his Huiyin Group brought Originating Claim No 107 of 2024 against his wife (Sun Hongmin), their daughter (Wo Qi), their son (Wo Quan), several offshore and Singapore companies and others. In essence he claims that his family members misappropriated assets worth about US$600m that he says he funded and beneficially owns, including cryptocurrency he says he entrusted to his daughter and shares in companies he says his wife and son held on trust for him. He alleges that in December 2023, while the daughter, wife and son were living in Singapore, the daughter cut off his access to exchange accounts and transferred the digital assets away. The defendants say the wife was the real owner and that the assets were held for a business run by the son.

The daughter, wife and several companies, then represented by Rajah & Tann, filed defences on the merits in 2024, sought further particulars, exchanged documents, opposed amendments to the claim and asked to apply for security for costs. After the claim was amended in April 2025 to add a conspiracy claim, they changed solicitors and, together with the son and another company, applied in Summonses Nos 1750, 1751 and 2292 of 2025 to stay the action on forum non conveniens grounds in favour of the PRC, or alternatively on case management grounds pending divorce proceedings the wife had begun in Shanghai. The Shanghai court dismissed her divorce petition on or around 31 October 2025, and she appealed.

1. Whether the defendants who had defended on the merits had waived their right to seek a forum non conveniens stay
2. Whether a defendant seeking such a stay must identify a precise foreign court as the alternative forum
3. Whether the PRC was clearly or distinctly a more appropriate forum than Singapore
4. Whether a case management stay pending the PRC divorce proceedings should be granted

The right to object on natural forum grounds can be waived by election, and waiver is shown by steps demonstrating a clear, unequivocal and consistent intention to have the dispute decided in Singapore. Under the Rules of Court 2021 a defendant can file a defence limited to jurisdiction, so choosing to file merits defences, twice, weighs heavily. Together with the other steps, including the security for costs request, the active defendants had waived the right. The amended conspiracy claim did not revive it, since the central question of whether husband or wife owned the assets had been in issue from the start and divorce had been contemplated since December 2023. A change of solicitors and strategy was no reason to disregard those steps. Staying the claims against the son and his company alone would fragment closely linked litigation.

The court went on to consider the merits in case it was wrong. A defendant need not always name a precise foreign court; naming the courts of a country and submitting to them is prima facie enough, unless the claimant's objection calls for more. The PRC was available, as the expert evidence did not show PRC courts lacked jurisdiction over cryptocurrency or foreign assets. But it was not clearly more appropriate. The defendants did not need to compel any witness, and translation costs mattered little between wealthy parties. Chinese law governed some agreements and the matrimonial property question, but laws of the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands and Singapore governed others, and Singapore was the place of the alleged conspiracy and inducement. The 2021 memorandum between the two countries' supreme courts on information on foreign law further reduced the weight of the Chinese law issues. The divorce proceedings overlapped only partly and were less advanced. The same reasons defeated the case management stay.

Kristy Tan J dismissed the Stay Applications, refusing both the forum non conveniens stay and the case management stay, and said she would hear the parties on costs.