ABC v XYZ

Appellant(s): Pamela Ling Yueh

Respondent(s): Hah Tiing Siu

• YAA Datuk Seri Hashim Bin Hamzah
• YA Datuk Wong Kian Kheong
• YA Dato' Dr Alwi Bin Abdul Wahab

• The husband and wife married in Malaysia in 2001, later relocated to Australia and then Singapore in 2008, where the wife and their three children (one with special medical needs) have resided since; the husband returned to Malaysia in 2011 for business.
• The wife commenced divorce proceedings in Singapore's Family Justice Court in August 2023, after which the husband applied to stay those proceedings and the wife sought an anti-suit injunction; both applications were dismissed by the Singapore District Judge, and the husband appealed the dismissal of his stay application to the Singapore High Court.
• In Malaysia, the husband filed a divorce petition in December 2023, obtained ex parte leave to serve the wife in Singapore via email and WhatsApp, and purportedly effected such service; the wife applied to set aside this leave, and the husband separately obtained an anti-suit injunction restraining the wife from continuing the Singapore proceedings.

• Whether the Malaysian High Court or the Singapore Family Justice Court was the "natural forum" for the divorce proceedings, and whether the High Court erred in failing to consider the best interests of the children and principles of comity, including the Singapore court's own findings on forum.
• Whether the High Court's grant of ex parte leave for service out of jurisdiction breached Order 11 rule 5(2) and (3) of the Rules of Court 2012, by authorising a mode of service (email/WhatsApp) contrary to Singapore's Family Justice Rules 2014, which mandate personal or registered post service absent a substituted service order.
• Whether non-compliance with Order 11 rule 5(2) and (3) could be cured under Order 1A and Order 2 rule 1(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 as mere irregularities, and whether the anti-suit injunction was properly granted given the natural forum analysis.

• The Court of Appeal held that Singapore was the natural forum for the divorce proceedings, given the children's residence, schooling, medical needs, and emotional ties there, and that the High Court erred in law by failing to apply the UNCRC's best interests principle, disregarding relevant considerations concerning the children, and not giving due comity to the Singapore court's own forum determination.
• The Court found that the ex parte leave for service was contrary to Singapore law, as the Family Justice Rules 2014 require personal or registered post service unless a substituted service order is obtained, and that expert evidence on foreign law (under sections 45 and 51 of the Evidence Act 1950) confirmed the purported email/WhatsApp service was invalid; the Court further held that such breaches of Order 11 rule 5(2) and (3), being contrary to comity and risking infringement of another state's sovereignty, could not be cured under Order 1A or Order 2 rule 1(1).
• Both appeals were allowed: the High Court's dismissal of the wife's setting-aside application was reversed (with the ex parte leave, service, and divorce petition set aside, and a declaration of no jurisdiction granted), and the anti-suit injunction against the wife was set aside, with costs awarded to the wife in both appeals.