Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGHCF 5
- Title: XEW v XEV
- Court: High Court (Family Division)
- Proceeding: Registrar’s Appeal from the Family Justice Courts
- Registrar’s Appeal No: 19 of 2024
- Judgment Date: 22 January 2025
- Date Judgment Reserved: 16 January 2025
- Judge: Choo Han Teck J
- Appellant: XEW (the “Husband”)
- Respondent: XEV (the “Wife”)
- Marriage: Married on 5 September 1992 in Norway
- Parties’ Ages: Husband 76; Wife 52
- Parties’ Citizenship: Husband Norwegian citizen; Wife United States citizen
- Wife’s Employment/Business: Interior designer; operates luxury villas in Bali, Indonesia
- Husband’s Employment: Managing partner of a Norwegian logistics company
- Children: Two adult children born in 1996 and 2002; neither lives in Singapore
- Commencement of Singapore Divorce: 17 April 2023 (Wife commenced divorce proceedings in Singapore)
- Jurisdiction Challenge in Singapore: 5 July 2023 (Husband filed SUM 2127/2023 to dismiss the writ of divorce for lack of jurisdiction)
- District Judge’s Decision: 26 September 2024 (DJ found Singapore courts had jurisdiction)
- Statutory Basis for Jurisdiction: s 93(1)(b) Women’s Charter 1961 (2020 Rev Ed) (“WC”)
- Material Period: 17 April 2020 to 17 April 2023
- Key Factual Findings Below (DJ): (a) Husband travelled extensively but always returned to Singapore; (b) Husband not liable to pay tax in Norway since 2005 and avoided tax residency by not spending more than half the year in Norway; (c) Husband changed residency status to “Ordinary Resident” in Norway only in May 2023 after Wife commenced Singapore divorce; Norwegian National Population Register stated Husband “immigrated from” Singapore; (d) Husband maintained a residence in Singapore and had a valid employment pass during the Material Period
- Parallel Proceedings in Norway: 23 June 2023 Husband commenced divorce proceedings in Norway; 29 April 2024 Norwegian Court of Appeal dismissed his application
- Norwegian Court of Appeal’s Reasons (as summarised in judgment): (a) Husband spent last 13–14 years in Singapore; (b) Husband ran a business in Norway for many years while being based in Singapore; (c) Husband had not purchased a home in Norway before relocating on 17 May 2023 and had yet to purchase one even at hearing
- Grounds of Appeal (Husband): (1) DJ erred in finding habitual residence in Singapore during the Material Period—quantitatively more time outside Singapore and qualitatively presence not settled; (2) alternatively, habitual residence was broken by long periods of absence; DJ allegedly did not consider this
- Wife’s Position: Habitual residence is not arithmetic; purpose and settled intention matter; absences were temporary and occasional; only permanent absences would break continuity
- Authorities Relied On: Lee Mei-Chih v Chang Kuo-Yuan [2012] 4 SLR 1115
- Counsel: Husband: Loo Ming Nee Bernice and Tan Si Ying, Gloria (Allen & Gledhill LLP); Wife: Gan Guo Bin and Quek Seng Soon Winston (Winston Quek & Company)
- Disposition: Appeal dismissed; parties to file submissions on costs within 14 days if unable to agree
Summary
XEW v XEV concerns a jurisdictional challenge in Singapore divorce proceedings under s 93(1) of the Women’s Charter 1961. The Husband, a Norwegian citizen, sought to dismiss the Wife’s Singapore writ of divorce on the basis that the Singapore courts lacked jurisdiction because he was not “habitually resident in Singapore for a period of 3 years immediately preceding the commencement of the proceedings”. The Wife commenced the divorce in Singapore on 17 April 2023, making the relevant “Material Period” 17 April 2020 to 17 April 2023.
The District Judge held that the Husband was habitually resident in Singapore during the Material Period. On appeal, Choo Han Teck J dismissed the Husband’s appeal. The High Court affirmed that habitual residence is a fact-sensitive inquiry focused on voluntary residence and settled purpose, and that the analysis is not a mere arithmetic exercise of time spent in or out of Singapore. The court also held that the Husband’s long absences did not demonstrate an intention to displace his settled purpose in Singapore, particularly given objective evidence that Singapore functioned as his base for business operations and that his conduct after the Wife commenced proceedings suggested prior residence in Singapore.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The parties were married in Norway on 5 September 1992. At the time of the High Court appeal, the Husband was 76 and the Wife was 52. The Husband is a Norwegian citizen and works as the managing partner of a Norwegian logistics company. The Wife is a United States citizen and works as an interior designer, with a business operating luxury villas in Bali, Indonesia. They have two adult children, born in 1996 and 2002, and neither child lives in Singapore.
On 17 April 2023, the Wife commenced divorce proceedings in Singapore. In response, on 5 July 2023, the Husband filed SUM 2127/2023 seeking dismissal of the Wife’s writ of divorce. His argument was jurisdictional: he contended that the Singapore courts had no jurisdiction under s 93(1) of the Women’s Charter 1961 because he was not habitually resident in Singapore for the required period immediately preceding the commencement of proceedings.
The Husband’s habitual residence was contested for the Material Period of 17 April 2020 to 17 April 2023. The District Judge found that, despite extensive travel, the Husband would always return to Singapore and maintained a residence there. The DJ also relied on evidence that the Husband had not been liable to pay tax in Norway since 2005 and had taken care to avoid becoming tax resident by not spending more than half the year in Norway. Further, the DJ found that the Husband changed his residency status in Norway to “Ordinary Resident” only in May 2023—after the Wife commenced the Singapore divorce proceedings—and that the Norwegian National Population Register as at 21 July 2023 indicated that the Husband “immigrated from” Singapore. The DJ also noted that the Husband had a valid employment pass during the Material Period.
Parallel to the Singapore proceedings, the Husband commenced divorce proceedings in Norway on 23 June 2023. On 29 April 2024, the Norwegian Court of Appeal dismissed his application. The High Court later treated the Norwegian appellate findings as relevant and persuasive on the question of the Husband’s residence. In particular, the Norwegian Court of Appeal found that the Husband had spent the last 13 to 14 years in Singapore, had run a business in Norway for many years while being based in Singapore, and had not purchased a home in Norway prior to relocating there on 17 May 2023 (and had not purchased one even at the time of the hearing). These findings were later used to undermine the Husband’s assertions that his presence in Singapore was not settled or that his residence had effectively shifted earlier.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The central legal issue was whether the Singapore courts had jurisdiction to hear the divorce under s 93(1)(b) of the Women’s Charter 1961. That provision requires that either party to the marriage be “habitually resident in Singapore for a period of 3 years immediately preceding the commencement of the proceedings”. The question was whether the Husband met this threshold during the Material Period.
Two related sub-issues arose on appeal. First, the Husband argued that the DJ erred in finding habitual residence because, quantitatively, he spent more time outside Singapore during the Material Period, and qualitatively, his presence in Singapore was not settled. Second, he argued that even if habitual residence existed, it was broken by long periods of absence from Singapore, and that the DJ allegedly failed to consider this continuity-breaking effect.
Accordingly, the High Court had to determine how to apply the established test for habitual residence—particularly the requirement that residence be adopted voluntarily and with a degree of settled purpose—and how to assess whether absences were temporary or permanent in nature. The court also had to consider the evidential weight to be given to findings made by a Norwegian court of competent jurisdiction, affirmed on appeal.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The High Court began by reiterating that habitual residence is a determination of fact. The court emphasised that the inquiry is not a mechanical exercise of counting days. While the Husband argued that he spent 19.5 months out of 36 months away from Singapore, the court held that this figure was not determinative in itself, especially given that the Husband was a well-travelled businessman with commitments across multiple countries.
In applying the legal framework, the court relied on Lee Mei-Chih v Chang Kuo-Yuan, which sets out two necessary features for habitual residence: (1) residence must have been adopted voluntarily; and (2) there must have been a degree of settled purpose in residing in the jurisdiction. Lee Mei-Chih also indicates that the court should consider the length of time spent out of jurisdiction to determine whether continuity of habitation required for habitual residence has been broken. The High Court treated these principles as requiring an intention-based assessment grounded in objective evidence.
On the Husband’s first ground of appeal, the High Court disagreed with the characterisation that the Husband’s presence in Singapore was merely transient or a “transit stop”. The court accepted the DJ’s finding that Singapore operated as a base from which the Husband conducted operations. It found this conclusion reasonable in light of objective evidence, including the Husband’s effective control of a sailboat moored in Singapore. The court noted that although the Husband did not own the sailboat, he effectively controlled it as chairman and sole shareholder of the company that owned the vessel. This supported the view that Singapore was not simply a stopover but a place where the Husband had an ongoing, practical presence.
The court also addressed the Husband’s explanation for his longer residence in Norway. The High Court observed that the Husband’s longer period in Norway occurred in 2020, when COVID-19 travel restrictions were in place. That context reduced the inference that the Husband had intentionally displaced his settled purpose in Singapore. The court further considered the Husband’s deliberate conduct in applying to change his residency status to Norway after the Wife commenced Singapore divorce proceedings. In the court’s view, this conduct suggested that the Husband was indeed resident in Singapore prior to that change, rather than that Singapore had ceased to be his habitual residence.
As to the Husband’s travel to other countries (France, Netherlands, Philippines, Vietnam and Indonesia), the court treated these as temporary stops rather than evidence of a settled relocation. Although the Husband had decided in 2022 not to renew his Singapore employment pass due to expire in August 2023, the court found that from 2022 to April 2023 he spent significantly more time in Singapore than in any other country. The court therefore concluded that the nature of absences during the Material Period did not evince an intention to displace his settled purpose in Singapore.
On the second ground of appeal—whether habitual residence was broken by long periods of absence—the High Court held that the Husband’s argument did not succeed. The court reiterated that only absences intended to be permanent would break the continuity of habitual residence. It found that the Husband’s absences were consistent with temporary travel for business and leisure, rather than a permanent shift away from Singapore. The court also rejected the Husband’s allegations that he had strong family ties and properties in other countries as unsupported assertions, and it treated them as contradicted by the Norwegian courts’ findings.
Importantly, the High Court addressed the role of the Norwegian Court of Appeal’s decision. The court stated that the findings of a court of competent jurisdiction in Norway, affirmed on appeal, would be deferred to. It used those findings to support the conclusion that the Husband had spent the last 13 to 14 years in Singapore and had been based in Singapore while running a Norway business. This reinforced the High Court’s conclusion that Singapore remained the Husband’s base and that his later relocation did not retroactively negate habitual residence during the Material Period.
Finally, the High Court considered the Husband’s reliance on Lee Mei-Chih. It distinguished Lee Mei-Chih on the facts. In Lee Mei-Chih, the plaintiff had no residency or employment status in Singapore, had no concrete settled purpose such as education, family or employment, and was not found to be in the habit of frequent overseas travel. By contrast, in XEW v XEV, the Husband held a valid employment pass in Singapore, resided in a sailboat moored in Singapore, and frequently travelled overseas for business and/or leisure. The court therefore concluded that Lee Mei-Chih did not assist the Husband in establishing that his absences broke habitual residence.
In addition, the High Court noted a procedural limitation: the Husband’s notice of appeal only put in issue the DJ’s specific finding on habitual residency. Since the Wife did not file a cross appeal, the High Court declined to address domicile-related matters raised in the submissions.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court dismissed the Husband’s appeal. It affirmed the District Judge’s finding that the Husband was habitually resident in Singapore during the Material Period of 17 April 2020 to 17 April 2023, and therefore the Singapore courts had jurisdiction under s 93(1)(b) of the Women’s Charter 1961 to hear the divorce proceedings.
As to costs, the court directed the parties to file submissions on costs within 14 days of the judgment if they were unable to agree on costs.
Why Does This Case Matter?
XEW v XEV is a useful authority for practitioners dealing with cross-border matrimonial disputes in Singapore, particularly where jurisdiction turns on habitual residence. The decision underscores that habitual residence is not determined by a simple tally of days spent in the jurisdiction. Instead, the court focuses on voluntary residence and settled purpose, and it evaluates whether absences reflect temporary travel or a permanent displacement of the person’s settled life.
The case also provides practical guidance on how courts may assess “settled purpose” through objective indicators. Here, the court relied on evidence such as the maintenance of a residence in Singapore, the existence of a valid employment pass, and the Husband’s operational base (including the sailboat moored in Singapore and his effective control over it). These factors illustrate the type of factual matrix that can support a finding of habitual residence even where the spouse is frequently overseas.
Further, the decision highlights the evidential weight that may be given to foreign judicial findings, especially where they are made by a court of competent jurisdiction and affirmed on appeal. While habitual residence remains a Singapore legal determination, the court’s deference to the Norwegian Court of Appeal’s findings demonstrates that foreign proceedings can materially influence the factual assessment of residence and intention.
Finally, XEW v XEV clarifies the application of Lee Mei-Chih. By distinguishing Lee Mei-Chih on the absence of settled purpose and residency/employment status, the High Court signalled that the Lee Mei-Chih framework is fact-dependent and that frequent travel does not automatically negate habitual residence where the person maintains a Singapore base and intention to return.
Legislation Referenced
Cases Cited
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGHCF 5 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.