VEW v VEV: Anti-Suit Injunction & Restraint of Foreign Proceedings in Divorce

In VEW v VEV, the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed whether an anti-suit injunction should be granted to prevent the appellant, VEW, from pursuing Part III proceedings under the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (UK) in English courts, following a divorce in Singapore where the respondent, VEV, was granted sole ownership of a London property. The court, comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA, and Judith Prakash JCA, allowed the appeal, setting aside the anti-suit injunction, holding that the Part III proceedings did not constitute re-litigation as the property was not considered a matrimonial asset in the Singapore divorce.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore Court of Appeal allows appeal, setting aside anti-suit injunction. The court held that Part III proceedings in the UK do not constitute re-litigation.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
VEWAppellantIndividualAppeal AllowedWon
VEVRespondentIndividualAnti-Suit Injunction Set AsideLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeNo
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Judith PrakashJustice of the Court of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Linda Joelle OngEngelin Teh Practice LLC
Chee Ying Li CherilynnEngelin Teh Practice LLC
Yap Teong LiangT L Yap Law Chambers LLC
Abraham VergisProvidence Law Asia LLC
Tan Hui QingT L Yap Law Chambers LLC
Bestlyn LooProvidence Law Asia LLC

4. Facts

  1. The appellant and respondent met in England in 2008 and moved into the Property, solely owned by the respondent, in March 2009.
  2. They married in Italy in July 2011 and moved to Singapore in February 2012, both becoming Singapore permanent residents.
  3. The appellant filed for divorce in England on 26 June 2018, and the respondent filed for divorce in Singapore on 9 July 2018.
  4. The divorce was granted in Singapore on an uncontested basis, with the Interim Judgment on 5 March 2019 and Final Judgment on 23 December 2019.
  5. On 8 October 2019, the District Judge ordered that there shall be no division of the Property, which shall belong to the respondent solely.
  6. The appellant applied to the English courts on 10 February 2020 for leave to apply for financial relief under Part III of the MFPA.
  7. Deputy District Judge Hodson granted the appellant leave on 21 August 2020, limited to orders against the respondent’s interest in the Property.

5. Formal Citations

  1. VEW v VEV, Civil Appeal No 52 of 2021, [2022] SGCA 34
  2. VEV v VEW, , [2020] SGFC 6

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Appellant and respondent met in England
Appellant and respondent moved into the Property in London
Appellant and respondent married in Italy
Appellant and respondent moved to Singapore
Appellant filed for divorce in England
Respondent filed for divorce in Singapore
Appellant's application for a stay of divorce proceedings in Singapore was dismissed
Appellant filed a defence in the Singapore divorce proceedings
Interim Judgment of Divorce was granted in Singapore
District Judge gave orders on the ancillary matters
Certificate of Final Judgment of Divorce was granted
Appellant applied to the English courts for leave to apply for financial relief under Part III of the MFPA
Deputy District Judge Hodson granted the appellant leave to make an application for financial relief
Appellant filed an application under Part III of the MFPA in the English courts
Respondent filed for an anti-suit injunction against the appellant’s Part III application in Singapore
English Central Family Court ordered that the appellant’s application be stayed generally
Anti-suit injunction was granted by the District Judge
Appellant’s appeal to the High Court was dismissed
English Central Family Court varied the Part III Stay Order
Appellant filed her Notice of Appeal to the Appellate Division
Civil Appeal 52 was transferred from the Appellate Division to the Court of Appeal
Appellant filed an application for leave to adduce further evidence
Application for leave to adduce further evidence was allowed
Hearing before the Court of Appeal
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Anti-Suit Injunction
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that an anti-suit injunction should not have been issued in this case.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Vexatious or oppressive conduct
      • Re-litigation of issues
  2. Financial Relief After Overseas Divorce
    • Outcome: The court found that the Part III proceedings did not constitute a re-litigation of issues already decided by the Singapore court.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Substantial ground for making an application
      • Appropriate venue for application

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Financial relief

9. Cause of Actions

  • Application for financial relief under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (UK)

10. Practice Areas

  • Family Law
  • Divorce
  • International Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar v Jhaveri Darsan JitendraCourt of AppealYes[2019] 2 SLR 372SingaporeCited for the factors to be considered when deciding whether to grant an anti-suit injunction.
AQN v AQOHigh CourtYes[2015] 2 SLR 523SingaporeEndorsed the test that focuses on whether or not the party against whom an anti-suit injunction is granted had acted in a vexatious or oppressive manner.
BOM v BOK and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2019] 1 SLR 349SingaporeCited to illustrate that the concept of unconscionability may be too vague and general in specific contexts.
Agbaje v AgbajeUK Supreme CourtYes[2010] UKSC 13United KingdomExtensively cited for the background and purpose of Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (UK).
UFN v UFM and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2019] 2 SLR 650SingaporeCited for the proposition that Chapter 4A of the Women’s Charter was modelled after Part III of the MFPA.
Harjit Kaur d/o Kulwant Singh v Saroop Singh a/l Amar SinghHigh CourtYes[2015] 4 SLR 1216SingaporeCited for the proposition that Chapter 4A allows the Singapore court to grant financial relief where there was no relief available in the foreign court or the relief granted was inadequate.
VKC v VJZ and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2021] 2 SLR 753SingaporeCited for the five factors that have to be considered when deciding whether to grant an anti-suit injunction.
Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd v Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt LtdCourt of AppealYes[2019] 1 SLR 732SingaporeCited for the general principles governing the issuance of anti-suit injunctions.
PT Sandipala Arthaputra v STMicroelectronics Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2015] 5 SLR 873SingaporeCited for the proposition that an anti-suit injunction is an order of the court compelling the party subject to the order to refrain from instituting or continuing with proceedings abroad.
John Reginald Stott Kirkham and others v Trane US Inc and othersCourt of AppealYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 428SingaporeCited as an example of factual findings which have supported findings of vexation or oppression.
Evergreen International SA v Volkswagen Group Singapore Pte Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2004] 2 SLR(R) 457SingaporeCited as an example of factual findings which have supported findings of vexation or oppression.
Munib Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company SAL and anotherEnglish Court of AppealYes[2008] EWCA Civ 625England and WalesCited as an example of a case where the fact that a respondent was seeking to re-litigate in a foreign jurisdiction matters which were already res judicata between himself and the applicant by reason of an English judgment could be a sufficient ground for the grant of an anti-suit injunction.
Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG and anotherHigh CourtYes[2011] 1 SLR 524SingaporeCited with approval Masri.
Baker, Michael A (executor of the estate of Chantal Burnison, deceased) v BCS Business Consulting Services Pte Ltd and othersSingapore International Commercial CourtYes[2022] 3 SLR 103SingaporeCited with approval Masri.
Aliye Ayten Ahmed and another v Mehmet MustafaEnglish Court of AppealYes[2014] EWCA Civ 277England and WalesCited for the principle that the subject matter of the proceedings did not, in itself, render an attempt at foreign re-litigation “unconscionable”.
UFM v UFNHigh CourtYes[2018] 3 SLR 450SingaporeCited for the proposition that the Law Reform Committee did not intend for the doctrine of natural forum to apply as a free-standing principle in the Chapter 4A exercise.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (c 42) (UK)United Kingdom
Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
Women’s Charter (2020 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Anti-suit injunction
  • Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (UK)
  • Chapter 4A of the Women’s Charter
  • Re-litigation
  • Vexatious or oppressive conduct
  • Matrimonial assets
  • Financial relief
  • Leave to apply
  • Comity
  • Natural forum

15.2 Keywords

  • Anti-suit injunction
  • Part III MFPA
  • Divorce
  • Singapore
  • England
  • Financial relief

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Family Law90
Divorce90
Division of Matrimonial Property80
Restraint of foreign proceedings80
Restraining Orders70
Private International Law70
Civil Procedure50
Constitutional Law30
Contract Law20

16. Subjects

  • Family Law
  • Conflict of Laws
  • Civil Procedure
  • Injunctions