VH v VI: Stay of Divorce Proceedings & Anti-Suit Injunction in Concurrent Singapore & Swedish Divorce Cases

In VH v VI, the Singapore High Court addressed concurrent divorce proceedings in Singapore and Sweden. The petitioner, VH, a French national, commenced divorce proceedings in Singapore against the respondent, VI, a Swedish national, citing adultery. The respondent later initiated divorce proceedings in Sweden. The court considered the respondent's application to stay the Singapore proceedings in favor of the Swedish proceedings and the petitioner's application for an anti-suit injunction to prevent the respondent from continuing the Swedish proceedings. The court dismissed the respondent's appeal for a stay and the petitioner's application for an anti-suit injunction, finding that Sweden was not a more appropriate forum and that the injunction was not justified. The court did not award costs to the respondent due to his conduct.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

The respondent’s appeal against the dismissal of the stay application is dismissed with costs. The petitioner’s anti-suit injunction application is dismissed, but the court will not award costs to the respondent.

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court addresses stay of divorce proceedings and anti-suit injunction in concurrent Singapore and Swedish divorce cases, focusing on forum conveniens.

1.7 Decision Date

16 December 2007

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
B	Co-Respondent	Individual	Neutral	Neutral	Koh Tien Hua of Harry Elias Partnership
VH	Petitioner	Individual	Application for anti-suit injunction dismissed	Lost	Niko Isaac of Tito Isaac & Co
VI	Respondent	Individual	Appeal against dismissal of stay application dismissed	Lost	Bernice Loo of Allen & Gledhill

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Kan Ting Chiu	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Koh Tien Hua	Harry Elias Partnership
Niko Isaac	Tito Isaac & Co
Bernice Loo	Allen & Gledhill

4. Facts

The petitioner, a French national, married the respondent, a Swedish national, in Sweden in July 1993.
The parties are permanent residents of Singapore and reside there with their two children.
The petitioner commenced divorce proceedings in Singapore on 13 September 2005, citing adultery.
The respondent filed divorce proceedings in Sweden on 4 October 2006.
The respondent applied to stay the Singapore proceedings pending the determination of the Swedish proceedings.
The petitioner applied for an anti-suit injunction to restrain the respondent from continuing with the Swedish proceedings.
The respondent disregarded an interim injunction and obtained a Divorce Decree in Sweden.

5. Formal Citations

VH v VI and Another, D 4042/2005, RAS 29/2007, SUM 6355/2007, 6708/2007, [2007] SGHC 221

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1993-07-01	Petitioner and respondent married in Sweden.
2005-09-13	Petitioner commenced divorce proceedings in Singapore.
2005-10-18	Respondent filed his answer to the divorce petition.
2006-10-04	Respondent filed divorce proceedings in Sweden.
2006-11-28	Respondent applied to stay the Singapore proceedings.
2007-01-09	Swedish District Court dismissed the petitioner’s application to stay the Swedish proceedings.
2007-03-09	Respondent's application to stay the Singapore proceedings was dismissed.
2007-04-26	Appeal against the dismissal was dismissed by the Swedish High Court.
2007-05-03	Petitioner applied for an anti-suit injunction in the Singapore proceedings.
2007-05-08	Hearing for the anti-suit injunction application.
2007-05-15	Respondent applied for a Divorce Decree to be issued in Sweden.
2007-06-26	Divorce Decree was issued in Sweden.
2007-07-04	Application to the Swedish Royal Court of Appeal for leave to appeal was dismissed.
2007-07-12	Parties appeared before the court again.
2007-12-17	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Stay of Proceedings
- Outcome: The court dismissed the respondent's appeal against the dismissal of the stay application, finding that Sweden was not a more appropriate forum than Singapore.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Forum non conveniens
- Related Cases:
  - [1987] 1 AC 460
  - [1992] 2 SLR 776
  - [1995] 3 SLR 97
  - [1998] 1 SLR 253
  - [2007] 1 SLR 377
Anti-Suit Injunction
- Outcome: The court dismissed the petitioner's application for an anti-suit injunction, finding that the ends of justice did not require it.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [1994] 2 SLR 816
  - [1997] 3 SLR 121
  - [1987] 1 AC 871
Forum Non Conveniens
- Outcome: The court found that Sweden was not a more appropriate forum than Singapore.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Related Cases:
  - [1987] 1 AC 460

8. Remedies Sought

Divorce
Anti-suit injunction
Stay of proceedings

9. Cause of Actions

Divorce
Adultery

10. Practice Areas

Divorce Litigation
Family Law
International Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd	House of Lords	Yes	[1987] 1 AC 460	England and Wales	Cited for the principles on stay of proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens.
Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling Corp & Anor v PT Airfast Services Indonesia	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1992] 2 SLR 776	Singapore	Cited as affirming the application of Spiliada principles in Singapore.
Eng Liat Kiang v Eng Bak Hern	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1995] 3 SLR 97	Singapore	Cited as affirming the application of Spiliada principles in Singapore.
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v Bhavani Stores Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] 1 SLR 253	Singapore	Cited as affirming the application of Spiliada principles in Singapore.
Rickshaw Investments Ltd & Another v Nicolai Baron von Uexkull	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR 377	Singapore	Cited as affirming the application of Spiliada principles in Singapore.
Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association v Djoni Widjaja	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1994] 2 SLR 816	Singapore	Cited for the principles on anti-suit injunctions.
Koh Kay Yew v Inno-Pacific Holdings Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1997] 3 SLR 121	Singapore	Cited as affirming the principles on anti-suit injunctions.
Société Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui Jak and Another	Privy Council	Yes	[1987] 1 AC 871	United Kingdom	Cited for the principles on anti-suit injunctions.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Women’s Charter (Cap 353 1997, Rev Ed) s 93(2)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Stay of proceedings
Anti-suit injunction
Forum non conveniens
Divorce proceedings
Concurrent jurisdiction
Ends of justice
Vexatious or oppressive
Fault-free divorce
Matrimonial assets
Interim injunction

15.2 Keywords

divorce
stay of proceedings
anti-suit injunction
forum non conveniens
Singapore
Sweden
family law

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Divorce	95
Anti-suit injunction	90
Family Law	90
Injunctions	85
Jurisdiction	80
Civil Litigation	75
Conflict of Laws	70
Forum Non Conveniens	65
Costs	50
Appeal	30
Constitutional Law	20
Arbitration	10

16. Subjects

Family Law
Civil Procedure
Conflict of Laws