SINGAPORE Law and Practice Contributed by: Loh Wai Mooi, Wang Liansheng, Valerie Goh and Petrina Tan, Bih Li & Lee LLP
to the originating application for dissolution of the marriage. The respondent should also file a summons to apply for the Singapore proceed - ings to be stayed pending a determination on the appropriate forum for divorce proceedings. In such an application based on the ground of forum non conveniens, the court of appeal has affirmed that the principles laid out in the semi - nal case of Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Can - sulex Ltd (1987) AC 460 are applicable. In brief, these principles are as follows. • The court may grant a stay on the ground of forum non conveniens when there is an avail - able forum, having competent jurisdiction, that is the appropriate forum. • Generally, the respondent would bear the bur - den of proving that a stay should be granted. If the court is satisfied on a prima facie basis that another forum would be the appropriate forum, the burden shifts to the applicant to establish that there are special circumstances that warrant a continuation of proceedings in Singapore. • The burden on the respondent extends to establishing that the alternative forum is clearly or distinctly more appropriate than the present forum. • The natural forum is the place in which there is the most real and substantial connection to the action. The court will examine connecting factors such as convenience, the law govern - ing the matter, the location of assets, and nationality. • An application for a stay would typically be refused in situations where the court deter - mines there is no other available forum that is clearly more appropriate. • Conversely, a stay would usually be granted where there is an available forum that – at face value – is clearly more appropriate for
the action, unless there are other countervail - ing considerations that conflict with the grant of a stay. In situations where the court’s jurisdiction may be a point of contention, parties should be wary of filing further pleadings and/or applications, as this may be seen as a submission to the jurisdic - tion of the Singapore courts (VH v VI and another (2008) 1 SLR 742.
2. Financial Proceedings 2.1 Choice of Jurisdiction Jurisdiction in Financial Claims
As the court’s power to order the division of matrimonial assets upon divorce flows from the granting of a judgment of divorce, the court’s jurisdiction to hear the parties’ financial claims follows from a grant of interim judgment of divorce. Contesting the court’s jurisdiction, at this late stage, would likely be seen as extremely belated and might not be entertained. Financial claims are often dealt with at the ancillary mat - ters’ stage of the divorce proceedings – that is, after the interim judgment of divorce has been granted. While a party is at liberty, at any stage, to make an application for a stay of proceedings, an appli - cation made on the basis of pursuing financial proceedings in an alternative jurisdiction is likely to require exceptional circumstances before it would be granted. Further, if the application is deemed frivolous or vexatious, it may also be dismissed with an adverse costs order against the party making the application. Generally, if there is any challenge to the appropriate forum for the proceedings, this should be made expe - ditiously and as early as possible.
277 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook