ANT v ANU: Child Custody Dispute and Forum Non Conveniens in International Family Law

In ANT v ANU, the High Court of Singapore heard appeals related to a child custody dispute and a personal protection order application. The wife, ANT, appealed against the District Judge's decision to stay her application for the return of her children to Singapore under the Guardianship of Infants Act, and also against the stay of her application for a Personal Protection Order (PPO) against the husband, ANU. The court dismissed the wife's appeal regarding the return of the children, finding New Zealand to be the more appropriate forum, but allowed her appeal concerning the PPO, although it provided no practical benefit as the parties no longer resided in Singapore.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed in part and allowed in part.

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court addresses child custody dispute between ANT and ANU, focusing on forum non conveniens in international family law. The court dismissed the wife's appeal regarding child's return but allowed her appeal for a personal protection order.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
ANTAppellantIndividualAppeal dismissed in part and allowed in partPartial
ANURespondentIndividualAppeal dismissed in part and allowed in partPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Suresh DamodaraDamodara Hazra LLP
Koh Tien HuaHarry Elias Partnership LLP

4. Facts

  1. The parties married in Shanghai in 2007 and have two children.
  2. The family resided in the USA, Oman, and Indonesia before moving to Singapore in 2012.
  3. The husband was posted to Singapore for work, and the wife and children held dependant passes.
  4. Both parties applied for Personal Protection Orders against each other in Singapore.
  5. The parties left Singapore in February/March 2013; the husband went to New Zealand with the children, and the wife went to China.
  6. The wife filed an application under the International Child Abduction Act for the return of the children.
  7. The wife also filed an application under the Guardianship of Infants Act for the return of the children to her.

5. Formal Citations

  1. ANT v ANU, Originating Summons (Family) No 273 of 2013 (Registrar's Appeal (State Courts) Nos 23 and 24 of 2014), [2014] SGHC 229

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Parties married in Shanghai, China.
Husband posted to Singapore for work; wife and daughter moved with him.
Husband applied for a Personal Protection Order and obtained an expedited protection order.
Wife applied for a Personal Protection Order and obtained an expedited protection order.
Parties and their children left Singapore.
Wife filed an application under the International Child Abduction Act for the return of the children.
Wife filed an application under s 8 of the Guardianship of Infants Act for the return of the children to her.
Husband filed an application for a declaration that the Singapore court has no jurisdiction.
District Judge refused the husband’s application for declaration and stayed the wife’s application for the return of the children.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Forum Non Conveniens
    • Outcome: The court held that New Zealand was the more appropriate forum for deciding issues concerning the children's return.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Related Cases:
      • [1987] 1 AC 460
  2. Guardianship of Infants
    • Outcome: The court considered the welfare of the children as the paramount consideration under the Guardianship of Infants Act.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Order for the husband to produce and deliver the children to the wife's custody
  2. Restraint order against the husband from taking the children from the wife's custody
  3. Personal Protection Order

9. Cause of Actions

  • Application for return of children under the Guardianship of Infants Act
  • Application for Personal Protection Order

10. Practice Areas

  • Family Litigation
  • International Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex LtdN/AYes[1987] 1 AC 460N/ACited for the two-stage test in determining whether a stay should be granted based on forum non conveniens.
The “Reecon Wolf”High CourtNo[2012] 2 SLR 289SingaporeCited to support the argument that the place where a tort is committed is prima facie the natural forum.
LN v SCCMHong Kong Court of AppealYesCACV 62 of 2013Hong KongCited to support the proposition that the appropriate jurisdiction for cases involving children is where the children habitually reside.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
International Child Abduction Act (Cap 143C, 2011 Rev Ed)Singapore
Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Forum non conveniens
  • Guardianship of Infants Act
  • Personal Protection Order
  • Expedited protection order
  • International Child Abduction Act
  • Habitual residence

15.2 Keywords

  • child custody
  • forum non conveniens
  • international child abduction
  • Singapore
  • family law
  • personal protection order

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Guardianship of Infants Act95
Children's Welfare90
Family Law90
Child Custody85
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction80
Relocation of Child75
Divorce70
Jurisdiction65
Private International Law60
Domestic Violence50
Administrative Law30
Constitutional Law20

16. Subjects

  • Family Law
  • Conflict of Laws
  • Child Custody
  • Civil Procedure