Murakami Takako v Wiryadi Louise Maria: Jurisdiction over Foreign Immovables & Estoppel in Matrimonial Disputes

In Murakami Takako v Wiryadi Louise Maria, the High Court of Singapore addressed the plaintiff's application to amend her Statement of Claim to include foreign immovable properties (Australian and Indonesian) and bank accounts in a dispute arising from ancillary divorce proceedings in Indonesia. The court, presided over by Andrew Ang J, considered arguments of issue estoppel, cause of action estoppel, and the Moçambique rule, which generally restricts jurisdiction over foreign land. The court allowed the amendment to include the bank accounts but disallowed the inclusion of the foreign properties, finding Singapore was not the natural forum for disputes over foreign immovables. The court emphasized the importance of the lex situs and the law of matrimonial domicile in determining jurisdiction.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application allowed in part; amendment to include movables (Westpac Bank accounts) permitted, but not for foreign immovables in Australia and Indonesia.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment reserved

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court addresses jurisdiction over foreign immovables in a matrimonial dispute, considering estoppel and the Moçambique rule. Amendments allowed for movables only.

1.7 Decision Date

31 March 2008

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Murakami Takako	Plaintiff	Individual	Application allowed in part	Partial	Devinder K Rai of ACIES Law Corporation Subramanian Pillai of ACIES Law Corporation
Wiryadi Louise Maria	Defendant	Individual	Application partially denied	Partial	Wong Soon Peng Adrian of Rajah & Tann LLP Yeap Poh Leong Andre of Rajah & Tann LLP Chan Wai Kit Darren Dominic of Rajah & Tann LLP
Ryuji Murakami	Defendant	Individual	Application partially denied	Partial	Wong Soon Peng Adrian of Rajah & Tann LLP Yeap Poh Leong Andre of Rajah & Tann LLP Chan Wai Kit Darren Dominic of Rajah & Tann LLP
Bahari Sjamsjur	Defendant	Individual	Application partially denied	Partial	Wong Soon Peng Adrian of Rajah & Tann LLP Yeap Poh Leong Andre of Rajah & Tann LLP Chan Wai Kit Darren Dominic of Rajah & Tann LLP
Ryuzo Murakami	Defendant	Individual	Application partially denied	Partial	Wong Soon Peng Adrian of Rajah & Tann LLP Yeap Poh Leong Andre of Rajah & Tann LLP Chan Wai Kit Darren Dominic of Rajah & Tann LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Andrew Ang	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Devinder K Rai	ACIES Law Corporation
Subramanian Pillai	ACIES Law Corporation
Wong Soon Peng Adrian	Rajah & Tann LLP
Yeap Poh Leong Andre	Rajah & Tann LLP
Chan Wai Kit Darren Dominic	Rajah & Tann LLP

4. Facts

The plaintiff sought to amend her Statement of Claim to include foreign properties.
The properties are located in Australia and Indonesia.
The plaintiff's claims are based on the assets of Takashi Murakami Suroso.
The dispute arose from ancillary divorce proceedings in Indonesia.
The Supreme Court of New South Wales granted a stay on proceedings related to the Australian properties.
The deceased and the first defendant were married in Indonesia.
The purchase money for the properties was acquired in Indonesia.

5. Formal Citations

Murakami Takako v Wiryadi Louise Maria and Others, Suit 219/2008, SIC 4366/2007, [2008] SGHC 47

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2007-01-01	Summons No 4366 of 2007 filed by the plaintiff to introduce amendments to her Statement of Claim.
2008-04-01	Judgment reserved by the High Court.
2006-01-01	Proceedings commenced in Murakami v Wiryadi in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

7. Legal Issues

Jurisdiction over Foreign Immovable Property
- Outcome: The court held that it did not have jurisdiction over the foreign immovables in Australia and Indonesia, and Singapore was not the natural forum for the dispute.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
  - Applicability of the Moçambique rule
  - Exception to the Moçambique rule based on contract or equity
  - Forum non conveniens
- Related Cases:
  - [1893] AC 602
  - [1908] 1 Ch 856
  - [1991] 1 WLR 1410
  - [1995] 3 SLR 97
Issue Estoppel
- Outcome: The court held that issue estoppel did not apply because the issue before the Supreme Court of New South Wales was not identical to the issue before the Singapore court.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Identity of issues in different courts
  - Forum non conveniens in foreign court
- Related Cases:
  - (1987-1988) 165 CLR 197
Cause of Action Estoppel
- Outcome: The court held that cause of action estoppel did not apply because the point was not one that properly belonged to the case before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, and there were special circumstances.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Points that might have been raised in earlier proceedings
  - Special circumstances exception
- Related Cases:
  - (1843) 3 Hare 100
  - [1992] SGHC 87

8. Remedies Sought

Amendment to Statement of Claim
In personam remedy (account of moneys)

9. Cause of Actions

Resulting Trust
Constructive Trust

10. Practice Areas

Civil Litigation
Private International Law
Family Law

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
The British South Africa Company v Companhia de Moçambique	N/A	Yes	[1893] AC 602	N/A	Cited for the Moçambique rule that the forum has no jurisdiction to determine the title to, or the right to the possession of, any immovable situate outside of the forum.
Murakami Takako v Wiryadi Louise Maria	N/A	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR 1119	Singapore	Cited to summarise the plaintiff’s claims based on the assets of one Takashi Murakami Suroso.
Murakami Takako v Wiryadi Louise Maria	N/A	Yes	[2007] 4 SLR 565	Singapore	Cited as the report of the appeal from [2007] 1 SLR 1119.
Murakami v Wiryadi	Supreme Court of New South Wales	Yes	[2006] NSWSC 1354	Australia	Cited for the proceedings commenced by the plaintiff in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the defendants were granted a stay on grounds of forum non conveniens.
Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Company Inc v Fay	High Court of Australia	Yes	(1987-1988) 165 CLR 197	Australia	Cited regarding the issue of whether Australia was a clearly inappropriate forum.
Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling Corp v PT Airfast Services Indonesia	N/A	Yes	[1992] 2 SLR 776	Singapore	Cited regarding the question of whether Singapore has jurisdiction over the foreign immovable properties.
Henderson v Henderson	N/A	Yes	(1843) 3 Hare 100	N/A	Cited for the principle that cause of action estoppel extends to points which might have been but were not raised in earlier proceedings.
Seah Peng Song v Seah Peng Koon	High Court	Yes	[1992] SGHC 87	Singapore	Cited for the exception to cause of action estoppel, which is the showing of special circumstance.
Penn v Lord Baltimore	N/A	Yes	(1750) 1 Ves Sen 444	N/A	Cited as an example of the exception to the Moçambique rule, where a forum has jurisdiction over a matter even though the proceedings are concerned with foreign immovable property, if it is based on a contract or equity between the parties.
Deschamps v Miller	N/A	Yes	[1908] 1 Ch 856	N/A	Cited as an example of the exception to the Moçambique rule, where a forum has jurisdiction over a matter even though the proceedings are concerned with foreign immovable property, if it is based on a contract or equity between the parties.
Griggs (R) Group Ltd v Evans (No. 2)	N/A	Yes	[2004] EWHC 1088	England and Wales	Cited as an example of the exception to the Moçambique rule, where a forum has jurisdiction over a matter even though the proceedings are concerned with foreign immovable property, if it is based on a contract or equity between the parties.
Webb v Webb	N/A	Yes	[1991] 1 WLR 1410	N/A	Cited as an example of the exception to the Moçambique rule, where a forum has jurisdiction over a matter even though the proceedings are concerned with foreign immovable property, if it is based on a contract or equity between the parties.
Eng Liat Kiang v Eng Bak Hern	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1995] 3 SLR 97	Singapore	Cited as a highly instructive case regarding the exception to the Moçambique rule and the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
Eng Liat Kiang v Eng Bak Hern	High Court	Yes	[1995] 1 SLR 577	Singapore	Cited for the High Court judgment that rejected arguments that the exception was anomalous and confirmed the exception as part of Singapore law.
Cook Industries Incorporated v Galliher	N/A	Yes	[1979] 1 Ch 439	N/A	Cited in relation to the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
Lightning v Lightning Electrical Contractors Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1998] EWHC Admin 431	England and Wales	Cited regarding the scope of the exception to the Moçambique rule and the applicable law.
Macmillan Inc v Bishopsgate Trust (No 3)	N/A	Yes	[1995] 1 WLR 978	N/A	Cited regarding the in personam jurisdiction of the English court.
Re Courtney	N/A	Yes	Re Courtney (1840) 4 Deac 27	N/A	Cited to show that the court must not shy away from applying the exception to the Moçambique rule merely because the precise equitable right being enforced is not recognised in other jurisdictions.
Rickshaw Investments Ltd v Nicolai Baron von Uexkull	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR 377	Singapore	Cited regarding the natural forum test.
Macmillan Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust plc (No 3)	N/A	Yes	[1996] 1 WLR 387	N/A	Cited regarding identifying the true issues thrown up by the claim.
Norris v Chambres	N/A	Yes	Norris v Chambres (1861) 45 ER 1004	N/A	Cited regarding the court declining to exercise jurisdiction under the exception.
Chellaram v Chellaram	N/A	Yes	Chellaram v Chellaram [1985] 1 Ch 409	N/A	Cited as a case reviewed in Webb v Webb regarding the exception to the Moçambique rule.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Moçambique rule
Issue estoppel
Cause of action estoppel
Forum non conveniens
Lex situs
Lex causae
Matrimonial domicile
Resulting trust
Constructive trust
Foreign immovables

15.2 Keywords

jurisdiction
foreign immovables
estoppel
matrimonial dispute
Moçambique rule
Singapore court
amendment
statement of claim

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Conflict of Laws	90
Civil Procedure	80
Jurisdiction	70
Estoppel	60

16. Subjects

Jurisdiction
Estoppel
Foreign Property
Divorce
Trusts