Allison Fong v Chong Sin Lai @ Song Sin Lai

Appellant(s): Allison Fong

Respondent(s): Chong Sin Lai @ Song Sin Lai

• YA Datuk Ravinthran a/l Paramaguru
• YA Dato Alwi Bin Abdul Wahab
• YA Tuan Leonard David Shim

• The parties were married in 1988 and separated in 2011, after which the husband filed a divorce petition in 2016.
• Service of the petition was effected via a substituted service order involving newspaper advertisement and posting at the last known address, leading to a Decree Nisi and a subsequent Decree Nisi Absolute in late 2016.
• Six years after the decree was made absolute, the wife applied to set aside the orders, alleging that the substituted service was defective, the petition was fraudulent, and the husband failed to refer the matrimonial difficulty to a conciliatory body.

• Whether there exist "good reasons" or "exceptional circumstances" that permit the Court to set aside a Decree Nisi after it has been made absolute, in the absence of express provisions in the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976.
• Whether a substituted service order can be challenged collaterally within an application to set aside a final decree, or if it must be challenged via a specific, separate application instituted for that purpose.
• Whether the failure to comply with the conciliatory body requirements under Section 106 of the Act renders a divorce decree invalid in circumstances where the marriage has irretrievably broken down and the parties have lived apart for over a decade.

• The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that once a Decree Nisi is made absolute, the Court is *functus officio* and the decree is generally not capable of being rescinded unless exceptional circumstances are proven, which the wife failed to do given the inordinate six-year delay.
• The Court affirmed that a substituted service order cannot be attacked collaterally and must be challenged by proceedings instituted for that specific purpose; furthermore, the wife was deemed to have notice of the proceedings through the advertisement and service at her last known address.
• The Court ruled that a referral to a conciliatory body was unnecessary and would serve no purpose where both parties admitted the marriage had irretrievably broken down and they had lived apart for many years, making reconciliation impossible.