Lee Mei-Chih v Chang Kuo-Yuan: Divorce Jurisdiction & Habitual Residence
Lee Mei-Chih appealed the District Judge's decision to dismiss her divorce suit against Chang Kuo-Yuan due to lack of jurisdiction. The High Court, presided over by Justice Choo Han Teck, dismissed the appeal, finding that Lee Mei-Chih, a citizen of Taiwan and New Zealand, had not established habitual residence in Singapore for the three years preceding the divorce petition, as required by the Women's Charter. The court considered the plaintiff's extended absences in Taiwan and New Zealand, concluding that the Singapore courts lacked jurisdiction to hear the divorce matter.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff failed to prove habitual residence in Singapore for three years before filing divorce.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee Mei-Chih | Plaintiff, Appellant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | Sim Bock Eng, Lam Shen Lin |
| Chang Kuo-Yuan | Defendant, Respondent | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Won | L Kuppanchetti, Wong Kum Fu Vincent |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Choo Han Teck | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Sim Bock Eng | WongPartnership LLP |
| Lam Shen Lin | WongPartnership LLP |
| L Kuppanchetti | ATMD Bird & Bird LLP |
| Wong Kum Fu Vincent | ATMD Bird & Bird LLP |
4. Facts
- The plaintiff and defendant are not Singaporean citizens or domiciled in Singapore.
- The plaintiff is a citizen of Taiwan and New Zealand.
- The defendant is a citizen of Taiwan.
- The parties were married in Taiwan in 1994 and registered in New Zealand in 1995.
- The parties have a 16-year-old daughter who is a citizen of Taiwan and New Zealand.
- The daughter resides in New Zealand and attends school there.
- The only matrimonial asset in Singapore is a condominium property located at Grange Road.
- The plaintiff was absent from Singapore for approximately 8 months in Taiwan.
- The plaintiff was absent from Singapore for approximately 4 months in New Zealand.
5. Formal Citations
- Lee Mei-Chih v Chang Kuo-Yuan, Divorce No 4945 of 2011 (RAS No 56 of 2012), [2012] SGHC 180
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Parties married in Taiwan | |
| Marriage registered in New Zealand | |
| Start of Qualifying Period for habitual residence | |
| Plaintiff traveled to New Zealand | |
| Plaintiff returned from New Zealand | |
| Plaintiff traveled to Taiwan | |
| Plaintiff returned from Taiwan | |
| Divorce petition filed | |
| Appeal dismissed |
7. Legal Issues
- Jurisdiction in Divorce Proceedings
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff was not habitually resident in Singapore for the qualifying period, and therefore the Singapore courts lacked jurisdiction.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Habitual Residence
- Qualifying Period of Residence
- Habitual Residence
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff's extended absences from Singapore disrupted the continuity of her habitual residence.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Continuity of Residence
- Settled Purpose of Residence
- Voluntary Nature of Residence
8. Remedies Sought
- Divorce
- Division of Matrimonial Assets
9. Cause of Actions
- Divorce
10. Practice Areas
- Family Litigation
- Divorce
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ikimi v Ikimi | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | [2001] EWCA Civ 873 | England and Wales | Cited for the interpretation of 'habitually resident' and its similarity to 'ordinarily resident' in jurisdictional matters. |
| R v Barnet London Borough Council, Ex p Nilish Shah | House of Lords | Yes | [1983] 2 AC 308 | England and Wales | Cited for the principles regarding the meaning of 'ordinarily resident' and its application to the concept of habitual residence. |
| Levene v Inland Revenue Commissioners | House of Lords | Yes | [1928] AC 217 | England and Wales | Cited for the construction of the phrase 'ordinarily resident' and its requirement of voluntary residence and settled purpose. |
| Inland Revenue Commissioners v Lysaght | House of Lords | Yes | [1928] AC 234 | England and Wales | Cited for the necessary features of 'ordinarily resident', namely residence adopted voluntarily and for settled purposes. |
| Stransky v Stransky | N/A | No | [1954] P 428 | England and Wales | Cited as an illustration of the kind of connection with the country that the Law Commission thought important when considering residence as a foundation of jurisdiction. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| English Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 | England and Wales |
| Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1949 | England and Wales |
| Matrimonial Causes Act 1950 | England and Wales |
| Matrimonial Causes Act 1965 | England and Wales |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Habitual Residence
- Jurisdiction
- Qualifying Period
- Domicile
- Matrimonial Asset
- Women's Charter
- Settled Purpose
15.2 Keywords
- Divorce
- Jurisdiction
- Habitual Residence
- Singapore
- Family Law
16. Subjects
- Family Law
- Divorce
- Jurisdiction
- Habitual Residence
17. Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Divorce Law
- Jurisdiction
- Conflict of Laws