‘No’ to rescind interim divorce order

SINGAPORE — A District Judge has dismissed an appeal by a businessman from China, who sought to rescind an interim divorce judgment here after the couple obtained a divorce order from a court in China.

District Judge (DJ) Lim Choi Ming found “no compelling reason” to rescind the judgment, adding that if he allowed the man’s appeal, it would “open the floodgates to litigants to forum shop” if they felt that divorce proceedings here were not proceeding in a way that was palatable to them.

Lawyers say the case sets out the effects of an interim divorce judgent in Singapore and what happens when there are competing orders in two competing jurisdictions.

In Singapore, an interim divorce judgment, which treats the marriage as dissolved, is granted first. A final divorce order is granted after all ancillary matters are settled.

Mr Wu Xinghua, who filed the application to strike out the interim divorce judgment in August last year, went to the High Court in March to set aside the order.

Mr Wu’s contention was that he and Madam Feng Huibin had obtained a divorce order from a court in China, which finalised the divorce and, thus, the interim judgment obtained here should be annulled.

Both Mr Wu and Madam Feng — who were married in China in 1999 and have no children — are Permanent Residents here. While his High Court appeal was dismissed, Mr Wu was given liberty to amend his application to the District Court.

Dismissing the application, DJ Lim noted that Mr Wu “was fully prepared to participate” in the Singapore proceedings until he decided to file an application to rescind the interim judgment.

“To my mind, it is the husband who is trying to abuse the process of court for his own benefit,” he said in his 21-page judgment released last Tuesday.

“To now rescind the interim judgment would prejudice the wife by depriving her of her ancillary rights of maintenance and the division of matrimonial assets, matters which the China court was informed we were in the midst of dealing with.”

Mr Wu was represented by Mr Ong Ying Ping, while Madam Wu was defended by Mr Koh Tian Hua in the latest hearing.