XSG v XSF

The parties, referred to as the Husband and the Wife, married on 8 May 2014 in Malaysia and were originally Malaysians. They moved to Singapore in 2017, became permanent residents on 27 March 2018, bought an HDB flat in August 2021 and became Singapore citizens in 2022, renouncing their Malaysian citizenship. They have three children, who hold dual citizenship. It was not disputed that the Husband built his business and wealth in Singapore. The family went to Perth in June 2023 and later to Malaysia, staying at the house of the Husband's father.

According to the Wife, the Husband pressured her to sell the flat, cut off financial support when she refused, became abusive when drunk, and on 1 October 2024 took the youngest child from her school in Johor Bahru. The Wife returned to Singapore with the two older children on 10 November 2024; the Husband said she did so without his knowledge or consent. He began custody proceedings in Malaysia, and the Wife filed a cross-application there for the youngest child's return. On 29 November 2024 the Wife filed for divorce in Singapore in FC/OAD 454/2024. She obtained a personal protection order on 25 March 2025. The Husband applied in Singapore for access to the older children, filed his own Singapore divorce in FC/OAD 2297/2025, and also petitioned for divorce in Malaysia. Both parties were later made bankrupt in Singapore. By FC/SUM 1875/2025 the Husband sought a stay of both Singapore divorces on the ground of forum non conveniens, pending the Malaysian proceedings.

1. Whether the parties' bankruptcy in Singapore supported a stay in favour of Malaysia.
2. Whether the parties' personal connections pointed to Malaysia as the clearly more appropriate forum.
3. What weight the parallel Malaysian divorce and custody proceedings carried.
4. Whether the location of matrimonial assets and of witnesses favoured a stay.

On bankruptcy, the court applied the Spiliada test as summarised in XLV v XLW [2025] SGHCF 35. It saw no principled way in which bankruptcy favoured a stay. The Husband's argument appeared aimed at avoiding his Singapore bankruptcy obligations. Asset division and maintenance were bound up with the Official Assignee's supervision, which anchored the case in Singapore.

On personal connection, the undisputed move to Singapore, the citizenship and the renunciation of Malaysian citizenship showed a Singapore domicile. The stay in Australia and later in Malaysia showed no intention to settle elsewhere, and the Husband's stay in Malaysia appeared driven more by a wish to evade his bankruptcy obligations. No relocation order was needed for Singapore citizens returning home.

On parallel proceedings, the Malaysian divorce came months after the Singapore divorce, in which the Husband had taken part and even filed his own case, so any duplication was of his own making and received no weight. The Malaysian custody proceedings did not justify staying a divorce, as a Singapore court applies the welfare principle afresh and may give a foreign order appropriate weight.

On assets, splitting the dispute across two countries would fragment it; there were assets in Singapore, so any Malaysian condominiums were at best neutral. The Husband's claim about witnesses was vague, while the Wife explained her difficulty in travelling, so that factor was at best neutral. None of the factors favoured a stay, so the second stage did not arise.

The Family Court dismissed the Husband's stay application, holding that he had not shown Malaysia to be clearly or distinctly the more appropriate forum, and fixed costs at $1,500 in favour of the Director of Legal Aid, since the Wife was legally aided. The Husband has appealed.