Yap Chai Ling v Hou Wa Yi: Setting Aside Decree Nisi Based on Prior Foreign Divorce Judgment

Yap Chai Ling and Yap Swee Jit, personal representatives of the late Yap Kiat Cheong, appealed to the High Court of Singapore against the decision to dismiss their application to set aside a decree nisi obtained by Hou Wa Yi, the deceased's wife. The appellants argued that a prior divorce judgment in Shanghai should be recognized, rendering the Singapore decree nisi invalid, and that the parties had not lived apart for the required four years. Hoo Sheau Peng JC dismissed the appeal, holding that the Shanghai divorce judgment should not be recognized due to public policy concerns regarding the regularization of a bigamous marriage and that the appellants had not shown sufficient cause to rescind the decree nisi. The court also considered the prejudice to the wife if the decree nisi were rescinded.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal to set aside a decree nisi based on a prior Shanghai divorce judgment. The court dismissed the appeal, refusing to recognize the Shanghai divorce.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Yap Chai LingAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLostKoh Tien Hua
Yap Swee JitAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLostKoh Tien Hua
Hou Wa YiRespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedWonDorothy Chai Li Li

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Hoo Sheau PengJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Koh Tien HuaHarry Elias Partnership LLP
Dorothy Chai Li LiDorothy Chai Law Practice

4. Facts

  1. Husband and Wife registered their marriage in Shanghai in 1991 while the Husband was still married to his previous wife.
  2. Husband was charged with bigamy, but the charge was later dropped.
  3. Husband obtained a decree absolute in respect of his previous marriage in 1992.
  4. Husband and Wife registered their marriage in Singapore in 1992.
  5. Husband commenced divorce proceedings in Shanghai in 2004, which were contested by the Wife.
  6. Shanghai court granted the divorce in 2004, holding that the marriage became valid from 1992.
  7. Wife filed for divorce in Singapore in 2005, citing the Husband's unreasonable behavior.
  8. Wife amended the petition in 2006, citing four years' separation as the basis for divorce.
  9. Decree Nisi was granted in Singapore in 2006 on an uncontested basis.
  10. Husband passed away in 2011 while the Wife's appeal against the ancillary orders was pending.
  11. Appellants, as personal representatives of the Husband, sought to set aside the Decree Nisi.
  12. Wife was awarded $62,176.87 and a lump sum maintenance of $14,400 in the Ancillary Orders.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Yap Chai Ling and another v Hou Wa Yi, Originating Summons (Family) No 330 of 2013 (Registrar's Appeal (State Courts) No 110 of 2014), [2015] SGHC 296

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Husband and Wife registered their marriage in Shanghai
Husband was charged for bigamy
High Court granted the decree absolute in respect of Husband's previous marriage
Parties solemnised and registered their marriage in Singapore
Parties began living in separate rooms
Husband commenced Divorce Petition No 601380 of 2001
Husband withdrew Divorce Petition No 601380 of 2001
Wife left Singapore and returned to Shanghai
Shanghai court of first instance granted the divorce
Husband commenced divorce proceedings in the Min Xing District People’s Court in Shanghai
Wife filed Divorce Petition No 2201 of 2005/B in the District Court
Shanghai appellate court upheld the decision of the Shanghai court of first instance
Husband responded by filing Summons No 1348/2006/G to strike out the divorce petition
Chinese courts ordered a division of the Parties’ Chinese assets only
Wife amended the petition
Decree Nisi was granted on an uncontested basis
Parties attended before a district judge for the hearing of the ancillary matters
Husband filed an originating summons in the High Court
Husband withdrew originating summons
Husband withdrew summons filed in D 2201/2005
District Court accepted the Husband’s argument, varying the ancillary orders
Husband passed away
RAS 149/2009 was adjourned sine die
Appellants were granted letters of probate
Appellants applied to have the Decree Nisi made absolute
Wife commenced District Court Suit No 2503 of 2011
District Court refused application to have the Decree Nisi made absolute
Appellants filed an appeal against the decision
High Court dismissed the appeal
Appellant filed Summons No 13074/2012/H to enforce the Ancillary Orders
Appellants filed Originating Summons (Family) No 330 of 2013
District Judge dismissed the application
High Court dismissed the appeal
Court of Appeal granted leave for the appellants to appeal against the decision
Appellants filed the appeal
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Recognition of Foreign Divorce Judgment
    • Outcome: The court held that the Shanghai divorce judgment should not be recognized in Singapore due to public policy concerns regarding the regularization of a bigamous marriage.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Public policy exception to recognition
      • Domicile as basis for jurisdiction
  2. Setting Aside Decree Nisi
    • Outcome: The court held that the appellants had not shown sufficient cause to rescind the decree nisi, as the material facts were either already before the court or did not vitiate the foundation of the decree nisi.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Material facts not brought before the court
      • Standing to apply under Section 99(2) of the Women's Charter
  3. Four-Year Separation Requirement
    • Outcome: The court held that even if there were intermittent periods of contact between the parties, they did not negate the claim that the parties had lived apart for a period of four years preceding the divorce petition.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Continuity of separation
      • Resumption of consortium vitae

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Order declaring the Decree Nisi null and void
  2. Order rescinding the Decree Nisi
  3. Order rescinding the Ancillary Orders

9. Cause of Actions

  • Divorce
  • Application to set aside Decree Nisi

10. Practice Areas

  • Family Litigation
  • Divorce
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Yap Chai Ling and another v Hou Wa YiDistrict CourtYes[2014] SGDC 299SingaporeSets out the grounds of the District Judge's decision that was being appealed.
Hou Wa Yi v Yap Kiat Cheong (Yap Chai Ling and another, interveners)High CourtYes[2012] 2 SLR 995SingaporeCited for the dismissal of the appeal against the decision that the court had neither the jurisdiction nor the power to grant a decree absolute.
Sivakolunthu Kumarasamy v Shanmugam Nagaiah and anotherCourt of AppealYes[1987] SLR(R) 702SingaporeCited as authority for the proposition that divorce proceedings do not abate upon the death of one of the parties to the marriage such that the court is deprived of jurisdiction over all subsequent matters in relation to the marriage.
Chng Yock Eng v Kwa Teck MengDistrict CourtYes[2004] SGDC 268SingaporeCited as a local case on Section 99(2) of the Women's Charter.
Racaza Juliet S v Caton David AndrewDistrict CourtYes[2004] SGDC 275SingaporeCited as a local case on Section 99(2) of the Women's Charter.
Tan Bee Hoon (also known as Chen MeiYun) v Goh Leong Heng Aris Chen MeiYunDistrict CourtYes[2005] SGDC 221SingaporeCited as a local case on Section 99(2) of the Women's Charter.
Hyde v Hyde and WoodmanseeN/AYesHyde v Hyde and Woodmansee (1866) LR 1 P & D 130England and WalesCited for the common law understanding of marriage.
Forster v Forster and Berridge (Graham intervening)N/AYesForster v Forster and Berridge (Graham intervening) (1863) 3 Sw. & Tr. 150England and WalesCited for the introduction of a two-stage process by which a divorce was granted.
Lautour v Her Majesty’s ProctorN/AYesLautour v Her Majesty’s Proctor (1864) 10 H.L.C. 685England and WalesCited for the rationale behind the enactment of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1860.
W. (M. J.) v W. (H. R. W.)N/AYes[1936] 1 P 187England and WalesCited for the explanation that proceedings for divorce are also a matter of public interest.
Stoate v StoateN/AYesStoate v Stoate (1861) 2 Sw. & Tr. 384England and WalesCited for the position in England that the parties to the marriage may not avail themselves of s 7.
Squires v SquiresN/AYes[1959] 1 WLR 483England and WalesCited for the doctrine of res judicata.
AOO v AONCourt of AppealYes[2011] 4 SLR 1169SingaporeCited for the concept of a default judgment does not exist in the context of matrimonial proceedings.
AWN v AWO and another appealHigh CourtYes[2012] SGHC 228SingaporeCited as a case which have applied s 99(2).
Shameek Bhushan v Tina GuptaDistrict CourtYes[2014] SGDC 425SingaporeCited as a case which have applied s 99(2).
Ho Ah Chye v Hsinchieh Hsu IreneN/AYes[1994] 1 SLR(R) 485SingaporeCited for the jurisdiction to grant a divorce if there is a valid and subsisting marriage.
Noor Azizan bte Colony (alias Noor Azizan bte Mohamed Noor) v Tan Lip Chin (alias Izak Tan)N/AYes[2006] 3 SLR(R) 707SingaporeCited for the principle that there can only be one marriage relationship even though a husband and wife may undergo two or more marriage ceremonies.
Thynne (Bath, Marchioness) v Thynne (Bath, Marquess)N/AYes[1955] 3 WLR 465England and WalesCited for the principle that a divorce operates on the marital status of persons and not on the marital ceremonies or solemnisations which preceded its formation.
Ng Sui Wah Novina v Chandra Michael SetiawanN/AYes[1992] 2 SLR(R) 111SingaporeCited for the principle that international comity usually compels our courts to recognise the foreign divorce judgment.
Gray (Orse Formosa) v FormosaN/AYes[1962] 3 WLR 1246England and WalesCited for the principle that public policy is a discretion that should be exercised only where it offends the judicial sense of “substantial justice”.
Vervaeke (formerly Messina) v Smith and othersN/AYes[1983] 1 AC 145England and WalesCited for the principle of English public policy was of such a character as to justify non-recognition of the foreign nullity decree.
Piper v PiperN/AYes(1978) 8 Fam 243England and WalesCited wherein the husband continued visiting the wife frequently even after they started living apart.
Seah Cheng Hock v Lau Biau ChinN/AYes[1968–1970] SLR(R) 513SingaporeCited where A V Winslow J clarified that the expression “living separately” comprised both the fact of separation as well as the intention to separate.
Kwong Sin Hwa v Lau Lee YenN/AYes[1993] 1 SLR(R) 90SingaporeCited for the sentiment expressed that in uncontested matrimonial causes, it is wrong for parties to assume that the courts merely rubber stamp their petitions and grant the decree sought.
Chaudhary v ChaudharyN/AYes[1985] 2 WLR 350England and WalesCited for the principle that parties to a marriage cannot deliberately contrive to avoid the incidents of their domiciliary law by travelling to another country to procure a divorce and thereby deny the other party the share of the matrimonial assets he or she would otherwise have been entitled to.
Wong Yuk Fong Lily v Menezes Ignatius Augustine (Menezes Daniel Matthew, intervener)N/AYes[1992] 1 SLR(R) 252SingaporeCited for the principle that the Wife would no longer be able to apply for a division of the matrimonial assets in Singapore since the Husband had passed on.
Foo Jee Seng and others v Foo Jhee Tuang and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2012] 4 SLR 339SingaporeCited that the Husband’s testamentary intentions as expressed in the Will must be given effect to.
Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck and othersN/AYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 453SingaporeCited for the principle that it is an abuse of process of the court to raise in subsequent proceedings matters which could and should have been litigated in earlier proceedings.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 332, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 35 r 2

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) s 99(2)Singapore
Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) s 7(a)Singapore
Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) s 99(3)Singapore
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) s 10(1)Singapore
Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) ss 4, 5, 11 and 105Singapore
Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) s 112Singapore
Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) s 95(7)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Decree Nisi
  • Shanghai divorce judgment
  • Material facts
  • Four-year separation
  • Public policy
  • Monogamy
  • Ancillary orders
  • Personal representatives
  • Consortium vitae
  • Domicile

15.2 Keywords

  • Divorce
  • Decree Nisi
  • Foreign Divorce
  • Shanghai
  • Singapore
  • Matrimonial Assets
  • Women's Charter
  • Public Policy

16. Subjects

  • Family Law
  • Divorce
  • Recognition of Foreign Judgments
  • Matrimonial Assets

17. Areas of Law

  • Family Law
  • Divorce Law
  • Private International Law