URN v URM: Child Maintenance Dispute Involving Singapore and Swedish Orders

In a family law dispute before the General Division of the High Court (Family Division) in Singapore, URN appealed against a District Court's decision regarding child maintenance, and URM cross-appealed. The case involved conflicting maintenance orders from Singapore and Sweden following divorce proceedings initiated in both jurisdictions. The High Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the Singapore order for child maintenance, finding that the Swedish order did not supersede it.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Family Justice Courts of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Both appeals dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court addresses a child maintenance dispute where a Swedish court issued a conflicting order. The Singapore order remains valid.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
URNAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
URMRespondent, AppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Debbie OngJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Singh RanjitFrancis Khoo & Lim
Ravleen Kaur KhairaFrancis Khoo & Lim

4. Facts

  1. The Father, a Swedish citizen, and the Mother, a Singapore citizen, were married in Singapore in August 2014.
  2. The couple has two daughters born in 2015 and 2016.
  3. The Mother filed for custody and maintenance in Singapore in August 2017.
  4. The Father commenced divorce proceedings in Sweden in August 2017.
  5. The District Court of Stockholm granted a “part judgement” of divorce on 7 September 2018.
  6. The Mother discontinued her divorce proceedings in Singapore after the part judgment of divorce in Sweden.
  7. The District Court of Stockholm issued a “default judgment” ordering the Father to pay S$1,224 in child maintenance from 1 June 2020.

5. Formal Citations

    6. Timeline

    DateEvent
    Father and Mother married in Singapore.
    Mother filed FC/OSG 168/2017 in Singapore for custody, care and control, and maintenance.
    Father commenced divorce proceedings in Sweden.
    Father filed FC/OSG 183/2017 in Singapore for joint custody.
    Mother commenced divorce proceedings in Singapore in FC/D 4545/2017.
    Mother filed FC/SUM 2420/2018 in Singapore for spousal maintenance.
    Mother filed an application for spousal maintenance in the District Court of Stockholm.
    District Court of Stockholm granted a “part judgement” of divorce.
    Mother was granted leave to discontinue D 4545 and SUM 2420 in Singapore.
    District Judge heard OSG 168 and OSG 183 and issued the Singapore Order.
    District Court of Stockholm rejected the Father’s petition for custody of the children.
    Father’s appeal in HCF/DCA 102/2018 and the Mother’s appeal in HCF/DCA 103/2018 against the Singapore Order were dismissed.
    Father filed an application in the District Court of Stockholm to order child maintenance.
    District Court of Stockholm decided that the Father’s application for child maintenance would be dealt with in separate proceedings from the divorce.
    District Court of Stockholm rejected the Mother’s request for dismissal of the Swedish lawsuit.
    District Court of Stockholm issued the Swedish Order.
    Father filed FC/SUM 1829/2020 to rescind the Singapore Order.
    Mother filed FC/SUM 2535/2020 to vary the orders on custody and access.
    DJ dismissed the Father’s application and varied the Singapore Order.
    Father appealed in HCF/DCA 129/2020.
    Mother appealed in HCF/DCA 131/2020.
    Hearing date
    Hearing date
    Judgment date

    7. Legal Issues

    1. Recognition of Foreign Judgments
      • Outcome: The court considered whether the Swedish Order should be recognised or enforced in Singapore, but made no finding on this issue as parties did not argue this point before the court.
      • Category: Jurisdictional
    2. Child Maintenance
      • Outcome: The court upheld the Singapore Order for child maintenance, finding that the Swedish Order did not supersede it.
      • Category: Substantive

    8. Remedies Sought

    1. Rescission of Singapore Order
    2. Variation of Singapore Order

    9. Cause of Actions

    • No cause of actions

    10. Practice Areas

    • Family Litigation

    11. Industries

    • No industries specified

    12. Cited Cases

    Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
    ATZ v AUAHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHC 161SingaporeDistinguished from the present case; ATZ v AUA concerned divorce proceedings commenced in Singapore, whereas the present case involves divorce proceedings in Sweden.
    Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp (formerly known as Merck & Co, Inc) v Merck KGaA (formerly known as E Merck)N/AYes[2021] 1 SLR 1102N/ACited for the principle that a defence to recognition of a foreign judgment may arise where there is an inconsistent prior or subsequent local judgment between the same parties.

    13. Applicable Rules

    Rule Name
    No applicable rules

    14. Applicable Statutes

    Statute NameJurisdiction
    Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
    Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
    Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act (Cap 169, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore

    15. Key Terms and Keywords

    15.1 Key Terms

    • Child Maintenance
    • Singapore Order
    • Swedish Order
    • Guardianship of Infants Act
    • Matrimonial Jurisdiction
    • Reciprocal Enforcement
    • Maintenance Orders

    15.2 Keywords

    • child maintenance
    • foreign judgment
    • Singapore
    • Sweden
    • family law

    17. Areas of Law

    Area NameRelevance Score
    Maintenance (Child)95
    Child Support95
    Family Law90
    Child Welfare70
    Child Custody60
    Conflict of Laws50
    Maintenance (Wife)40
    Judgments and Orders30
    Matrimonial Assets Division30

    16. Subjects

    • Family Law
    • Conflict of Laws
    • Child Maintenance
    • Enforcement of Foreign Judgments