BDA v BDB: Forum Non Conveniens in Maintenance Application under Women's Charter

In BDA v BDB, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by BDA (“the Wife”) against the decision of a District Court judge to stay her application for maintenance against her husband, BDB (“the Husband”), under s 69 of the Women’s Charter on the ground of forum non conveniens. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Husband had not discharged the burden of showing that India was clearly or distinctly a more appropriate forum. The court found that the judge had erred in placing too much weight on the nationality of the parties and not giving sufficient consideration to the fact that the Husband is residing and working in Singapore.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal against stay of maintenance application. The High Court held that the husband failed to show India was a more appropriate forum.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
BDAAppellantIndividualAppeal AllowedWon
BDBRespondentIndividualStay of Maintenance ApplicationLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of the Court of AppealYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Koh Tien HuaHarry Elias Partnership LLP
Raymond YeoMessrs Raymond Yeo

4. Facts

  1. The Husband and the Wife were married in India in February 2005.
  2. Both the Husband and the Wife are legally qualified to practise law in India.
  3. The parties moved to Hong Kong within six months of the marriage.
  4. In January 2008, the parties relocated to Singapore.
  5. Their son was born in Singapore in January 2010.
  6. The Wife took the son and left for India in October 2010.
  7. The Wife filed for maintenance in Singapore on 2 September 2011.
  8. The Husband filed for divorce in India around October or November 2011.

5. Formal Citations

  1. BDA v BDB, District Court Appeal No. 19 of 2012, [2012] SGHC 209

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Husband and Wife married in India
Parties moved to Hong Kong
Parties relocated to Singapore
Son born in Singapore
Wife took the son and left for India
Wife's application for maintenance was filed
Wife requested for her personal belongings to be sent to her in India
Husband filed for divorce in India
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Forum Non Conveniens
    • Outcome: The court held that the Husband had not discharged the burden of showing that India was clearly or distinctly a more appropriate forum.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1987] 1 AC 460
  2. Maintenance Application
    • Outcome: The court allowed the wife's appeal against the stay of her maintenance application.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Maintenance

9. Cause of Actions

  • Application for Maintenance

10. Practice Areas

  • Divorce
  • Maintenance
  • Forum Non Conveniens

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Chew Cheng Swee v Chan Chye NeoUnknownYes[1932] MLJ 5MalaysiaCited for the principle that proceedings are civil in nature where they may not end in imprisonment.
Tan Hock Chuan v Tan Tiong HwaUnknownYes[2002] 2 SLR(R) 90SingaporeCited for the principle that the utilisation of criminal procedure in proceedings does not automatically make them criminal in nature.
Dampierre v De DampierreHouse of LordsNo[1988] 1 AC 92EnglandCited as an example where the doctrine of forum non conveniens was held to apply to divorce proceedings not governed by intra-European Union legislation on mandatory jurisdiction.
Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex LtdHouse of LordsYes[1987] 1 AC 460EnglandCited for the test applied to determine if a proceeding commenced in Singapore ought to be stayed on the ground of forum non conveniens.
JKN v JCN (Divorce: Forum)UnknownNo[2011] 1 FLR 826EnglandCited as an example where the doctrine of forum non conveniens was held to apply to divorce proceedings not governed by intra-European Union legislation on mandatory jurisdiction.
Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty LtdHigh Court of AustraliaNo(1990) 171 CLR 538AustraliaCited for the test of whether the local court is a clearly inappropriate forum.
Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co Inc v FayHigh Court of AustraliaNo(1988) 165 CLR 197AustraliaCited for the test of whether the local court is a clearly inappropriate forum.
Henry v HenryHigh Court of AustraliaYes(1996) 185 CLR 571AustraliaCited as an example where divorce proceedings were stayed pursuant to the test in Voth.
Orchard Capital I Ltd v Ravindra Kumar JhunjhunwalaCourt of AppealYes[2012] 2 SLR 519SingaporeCited for the principle that the Spiliada test is applied to determine if a proceeding commenced in Singapore ought to be stayed on the ground of forum non conveniens.
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v Bhavani Stores Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[1997] 3 SLR(R) 363SingaporeCited for the principle that the Spiliada test is applied to determine if a proceeding commenced in Singapore ought to be stayed on the ground of forum non conveniens.
Eng Liat Kiang v Eng Bak HernCourt of AppealYes[1995] 2 SLR(R) 851SingaporeCited for the principle that the Spiliada test is applied to determine if a proceeding commenced in Singapore ought to be stayed on the ground of forum non conveniens.
Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling Corp and another v PT Airfast Services Indonesia and another appealUnknownYes[1992] 2 SLR(R) 345SingaporeCited for the principle that the Spiliada test is applied to determine if a proceeding commenced in Singapore ought to be stayed on the ground of forum non conveniens.
CIMB Bank Bhd v Dresdner Kleinwort LtdCourt of AppealYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 543SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court should not interfere with a judge's discretion in determining whether or not to grant a stay of proceedings unless the judge had misdirected himself on a matter of principle.
Rockware Glass Ltd v MacShannonHouse of LordsNo[1978] 1 AC 795EnglandCited as an example where the House of Lords granted the forum non conveniens plea of the defendants despite the defendants being companies headquartered and registered in England.
Q & M Enterprises Sdn Bhd v Poh KiatHigh CourtNo[2005] 4 SLR(R) 494SingaporeCited as an example where the High Court stayed the action on the basis that the majority of the real and close connecting factors were located in Malaysia.
Helen Diane Womersley (m.w.) v Nigel Maurice WomersleyDistrict CourtNo[2003] SGDC 186SingaporeCited for the principle that an English court would be in a better position to consider the cost of living in England.
Prapavathi d/o N Balabaskaran v Manjini BalamuruganDistrict CourtNo[2002] SGDC 354SingaporeCited for the principle that it would be easier for a Singapore court to consider the wife’s cost of living in Singapore.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 69 of the Women’s CharterSingapore
s 79 of the Women’s CharterSingapore
s 77(1) of the Women’s CharterSingapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68)Singapore
Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Cap 264, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Forum Non Conveniens
  • Maintenance
  • Women's Charter
  • Singapore Permanent Resident
  • Spiliada Test

15.2 Keywords

  • Forum Non Conveniens
  • Maintenance Application
  • Women's Charter
  • Singapore
  • Family Law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Maintenance (Wife)90
Family Law90
Conflict of Laws60
Maintenance50
Civil Procedure40
Property Law30
Arbitration20

16. Subjects

  • Family Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Conflict of Laws