FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY DIVISION – husband residing in Australia, wife residing in Singapore – majority of assets located in Australia.
PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – litigation commenced by wife earlier in time in Singaporean court – stay application of that proceeding brought by husband refused by Singapore court – no written reasons given – this proceeding commenced in this court by husband later in time – both pieces of litigation at embryonic phase.
FORUM NON CONVENIENS – whether Australia not the clearly inappropriate forum – relevant Australian and international authorities examined.
FAMILY LAW – STAY APPLICATION – whether this proceeding should be stayed – Voth v Manildra considered – CSR v Cigna considered.
FAMILY LAW – ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTIONS – detailed examination of jurisprudence – injunction ordered restraining respondent in personam from continuing with proceeding in Singapore Court – enforceability of orders of this court in relation to property in Australia a critical point in the determination of that issue.
Women’s Charter (Singapore, cap 353, 2009 rev ed), ss 95, 112, 113, 114, 121D(3) Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Singapore, cap 322, 2007 rev ed), s 16
Supreme Court of Singapore, Practice Directions (Amendment No. 5 of 2014), 1 October 2014
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading SCARFFE & OBANNON
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
SCARFFE & OBANNON [2020] FamCA 77
Case
[2020] FamCA 77
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In this matter before the Honourable Justice Wilson, the applicant husband, residing in Australia, sought orders in relation to property division against the respondent wife, who resided in Singapore. The majority of the parties' assets were located in Australia. The wife had previously commenced litigation concerning the property division in Singapore, an application to stay which was refused by the Singaporean court without written reasons. The husband subsequently commenced the present proceeding in Australia. Both proceedings were at an early stage.
The court was required to determine whether Australia was the clearly inappropriate forum for the Australian proceeding, considering principles of *forum non conveniens*. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the Australian proceeding should be stayed, applying relevant Australian authorities such as *Voth v Manildra* and *CSR v Cigna*. A further critical issue was whether an anti-suit injunction should be granted to restrain the wife from continuing the Singaporean proceeding, with the enforceability of Australian court orders concerning Australian property being a significant factor in this determination.
Justice Wilson reasoned that Australia was not the clearly inappropriate forum. The court applied principles of *forum non conveniens* and found that the connection of the parties and the majority of the assets to Australia weighed against a stay of the Australian proceeding. The court also granted an anti-suit injunction, restraining the wife from continuing the Singaporean proceeding. This decision was influenced by the critical importance of the Australian court's ability to enforce its orders in relation to the Australian property.
The court ordered that the wife's application to stay the Australian proceeding be refused. The wife was restrained from continuing with the Singaporean proceeding until further order. The husband's applications for the appointment of a single expert to value specific property and for full and frank disclosure were referred to the docketed registrar. Further hearings were also referred to the registrar for case management, and the wife's applications for interim orders were dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The respondent’s application to stay this proceeding is refused.
2.
The respondent is restrained from continuing with proceeding …/2019 in the Family Justice Courts in Singapore or other similar proceeding until further order.
3.
The applicant’s application for the appointment of a single expert to value the land and improvements of B Street, Suburb C is referred to the docketed registrar.
4.
The applicant’s application for an order for full and frank disclosure by the wife is referred to the docketed registrar.
5.
The further hearing of this proceeding is referred to the docketed registrar for ongoing case management.
6.
The applications for interim orders sought in paragraphs 1 to 4 of the respondent’s response are dismissed.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.