Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGFC 105
- Title: XRG v XRH
- Court: Family Justice Courts (Family Court)
- Case Numbers: HCF/RAS 26/2025; FC/OAG 74/2025; FC/SUM 1244/2025
- Judgment Date: 3 October 2025
- Hearing Dates: 17 July 2025, 18 July 2025, 7 August 2025 and 20 August 2025
- Judge: District Judge Chia Wee Kiat
- Applicant/Plaintiff: XRG (“Mother”)
- Respondent/Defendant: XRH (“Father”)
- Parties’ Nationality: Citizens and nationals of the People’s Republic of China
- Relationship: Long-term relationship since 2018; parties were never legally married
- Children: Two girls; first child born November 2018; second child born June 2020
- Legal Areas: Family Law; Service of Process; Substituted Service; Setting Aside; Stay of Proceedings
- Statutes Referenced: Evidence Act 1893
- Cases Cited: None stated in the provided extract
- Judgment Length: 19 pages, 5,453 words
Summary
XRG v XRH concerned two interlinked procedural questions arising in an unwed parents’ custody-related dispute in the Family Justice Courts: first, whether the court should set aside service of the originating court papers effected through substituted service in Singapore; and second, whether the proceedings should be stayed on the basis of forum non conveniens (i.e., that another forum—here, China—was the more appropriate forum for adjudication).
The Mother commenced custody proceedings in Singapore (FC/OAG 74/2025). The Father resisted the proceedings by challenging the court’s jurisdiction and by seeking to set aside service (FC/SUM 1244/2025). He argued, among other things, that he was outside Singapore when service was effected and that the children were habitually resident in China. The Mother, by contrast, asserted that the Father had been evasive, had restricted her access, and that the children were in fact in Singapore and attending school there.
The District Judge dismissed both the Father’s application to set aside service and his application to stay the proceedings, and ordered costs fixed at $3,000 to the Mother. The decision is significant for practitioners because it illustrates the court’s approach to substituted service in family proceedings where a respondent may be difficult to locate, and it also demonstrates the court’s reluctance to grant a stay where the evidence and practical realities point to Singapore as the operative forum for the children’s welfare and the effective conduct of the case.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The parties are both Chinese nationals and citizens. They were in a long-term relationship beginning in 2018 but were never legally married. Their family life involved multiple relocations. They lived in the United States from September 2018 to January 2019, where their first child was born in November 2018. They later moved to Shanghai, China, where their second child was born in June 2020. Both children are girls.
According to the Mother, the relationship between the parties was unstable and marked by frequent disagreements. In August 2022, following a heated argument, the Father unilaterally moved out of the common residence in Shanghai and uprooted his life to work in Beijing, leaving the Mother to care for the children. In August 2023, the Father proposed that the Mother and children relocate to Singapore so that the children could benefit from education in Singapore. The Mother says there was a shared understanding that she would remain the primary caregiver and legal guardian, consistent with the position before the relocation.
The Mother’s account is that she was left to care for the children for most of the initial months after the move to Singapore. On 20 February 2024, the Mother alleges that the Father chased her out of the apartment after a dispute and did not allow her to return or have meaningful access time with the children. On 26 February 2024, she says the Father unilaterally relocated the children to China without her knowledge and became uncontactable for more than a month. She only received a response on 28 March 2024 after repeated messages.
While the Father was still in China with the children, the Mother experienced difficulties in securing access arrangements. She engaged a lawyer in China and commenced an application on 17 April 2024 for custody and maintenance. The parties entered into a mediation agreement on 9 July 2024, but the Mother says the Father continued to be difficult with access. On 28 July 2024, the Father returned to Singapore with the children without the Mother’s knowledge. The Mother then attempted to enforce access proceedings in China, but she made little progress because the Father ignored communications and was physically in Singapore by that time.
After returning to Singapore, the Mother says the Father imposed restrictions that made her access difficult. On 2 April 2025, she instructed Singapore solicitors to write to the Father with proposed access arrangements for April 2025. She alleges that the Father did not respond and shut off almost all modes of communication. She could only communicate by email, which she says the Father did not respond to. In these circumstances, she commenced custody proceedings in Singapore by filing FC/OAG 74/2025 on 14 April 2025.
Service attempts were unsuccessful. The Mother’s solicitors attempted to serve the court papers personally at the Father’s workplace at Clemenceau Avenue on two occasions, but service was unsuccessful. The Father had instructed and retained solicitors to represent him in a POHA proceeding against the Mother, yet he declined to authorise his solicitors to accept service of process for the custody application. He also did not respond to correspondence from the Mother’s solicitors sent to his email address.
On 29 April 2025, the Mother applied for substituted service (FC/SUM 937/2025). She relied on the ground that the Father was ordinarily resident in Singapore. She pointed to the Father’s Employment Pass status and his work in Singapore, as well as his role as director of five Singapore-registered companies. She also asserted that the children were studying in Singapore and that the Father was evading personal service. On 2 May 2025, the Assistant Registrar granted substituted service via AR registered post to the registered address of the Father’s Singapore businesses and virtual service to his email and Singpass app inbox. The Mother’s solicitors effected substituted service on 7 May 2025.
On 3 June 2025, the Father filed FC/SUM 1244/2025 seeking: (1) a declaration that the court lacked jurisdiction; (2) setting aside of service as invalid and improper; and (3) dismissal of the Mother’s application with costs. In his supporting affidavit, he asserted that the children were habitually resident in China, enrolled in school there, and had no legal status, domicile, or habitual residence in Singapore. He also claimed that the children were not even in Singapore at the time.
In parallel, the Mother filed an urgent interim injunction application (FC/SUM 1458/2025) on 27 June 2025 to restrain the Father from removing the children from Singapore pending the final determination of the proceedings. She argued that the evidence indicated the children were presently resident in Singapore, contrary to the Father’s assertion. She relied on, among other things, the children’s enrolment in an international school in Singapore and public posts from the school showing the children’s participation in school activities as recently as May 2025. She also noted that the Father had applied for Singapore permanent residence for himself and the children, and that he had not confirmed the children’s location, school, or caregiver status despite being asked.
District Judge Amy Tung granted an interim injunction on 28 June 2025 and ordered the Father to state with particularity the location of the children and their caregivers. When the Father’s SUM 1244 came before District Judge Chia Wee Kiat, the judge treated the matter as involving two substantive applications: (i) the setting aside of service (prayer 2), and (ii) a stay of proceedings on forum non conveniens grounds (prayer 1). The judge dismissed both applications with costs fixed at $3,000 to the Mother, and later provided written grounds incorporating brief reasons and elaborations.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The first key issue was whether the Father could successfully set aside service of the originating court papers that had been effected through substituted service in Singapore. The Father’s position was that, at the time substituted service was effected on 7 May 2025, he was physically present in China. He argued that where a respondent is outside Singapore, service must be effected out of Singapore and that leave of court must be sought for service out. This raised questions about the proper approach to substituted service, the evidential burden on the party seeking to set aside, and the relevance of the respondent’s presence (or absence) at the time of service.
The second key issue was whether the court should stay the proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens. The Father’s stay application effectively asked the court to decline to exercise jurisdiction in favour of China, relying on assertions that the children were habitually resident in China and that the dispute was more appropriately determined there. The Mother opposed the stay, contending that the practical realities—especially the children’s schooling and presence in Singapore—made Singapore the more suitable forum for the effective determination of custody-related issues.
Although the extract provided does not include the full reasoning on the jurisdictional declaration, the judge’s framing indicates that the substantive contest was procedural and discretionary: whether service was properly effected and whether a stay should be granted. In family proceedings, these questions are often tightly connected to the court’s ability to secure the children’s welfare and to ensure that the proceedings can proceed fairly and efficiently.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
On the setting aside of service, the court approached the matter as a preliminary issue. The judge noted that the parties agreed it would be helpful to obtain from the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) the entry and exit records of the Father and the two children from April 2025 to May 2025. This evidential step was aimed at testing the Father’s assertion that he was physically in China when substituted service was effected. The judge also recorded that the Father’s counsel facilitated obtaining the ICA records, and that to save time and costs, the ICA’s reply could be tendered to court via correspondence without the need for the Father to file an affidavit exhibiting the same.
This approach reflects a pragmatic evidential management strategy: where the dispute turns on factual assertions about location at a particular time, the court may rely on objective immigration records rather than treating the respondent’s affidavit evidence as conclusive. In service disputes, the court must balance procedural fairness to the respondent with the need to prevent a party from frustrating proceedings through evasion or non-cooperation. The Mother’s narrative of attempted personal service failures, the Father’s refusal to authorise acceptance of service by his solicitors, and his non-responsiveness to correspondence supported the Mother’s case that substituted service was necessary.
Although the extract does not show the judge’s final findings on the ICA records, the outcome is clear: the judge dismissed the Father’s application to set aside service. This suggests that the court was satisfied that substituted service was properly ordered and effected, and that the Father’s physical presence in China at the relevant time did not, by itself, invalidate the service. The decision also indicates that the court treated the substituted service regime as capable of being effective even where a respondent is not physically in Singapore, provided the court’s order for substituted service was properly grounded and the service was carried out in accordance with that order.
On the stay of proceedings, the judge treated the Father’s prayer 1 as an application grounded in forum non conveniens. Forum non conveniens requires the court to consider whether there is another clearly more appropriate forum for the dispute, taking into account factors such as the location of evidence, the convenience of parties and witnesses, the governing law, and—particularly in family cases—the practical and welfare considerations affecting the children. The judge’s reasons (as reflected in the extract) also show that the Father clarified that prayer 1 was a stay application and that neither prayer 1 nor prayer 2, if granted, would necessarily lead to dismissal of the Mother’s application.
In family proceedings involving children, the court’s analysis typically places significant weight on the children’s actual circumstances and the feasibility of obtaining timely relief. Here, the Mother’s evidence—enrolment in an international school in Singapore, school activity posts as recently as May 2025, and the Father’s apparent failure to provide concrete information about the children’s location—undermined the Father’s assertion that the children were in China and that China was the appropriate forum. The judge also had before him the interim injunction context: the court had already ordered the Father to state with particularity the location of the children and their caregivers, and the Mother had sought urgent relief on the basis that the children were at risk of being removed from Singapore.
The judge’s dismissal of the stay application indicates that the court was not persuaded that China was the clearly more appropriate forum. Instead, the practical realities pointed to Singapore as the forum where the proceedings could be effectively managed, particularly given the children’s schooling and presence in Singapore and the need for continuity in custody and access arrangements. The court’s willingness to proceed despite the Father’s jurisdictional challenge is consistent with the broader policy of ensuring that family disputes affecting children are resolved without undue delay and without allowing procedural tactics to derail substantive determinations.
Finally, the judge’s cost order—costs fixed at $3,000 to the Mother—signals that the court viewed the Father’s procedural resistance as unsuccessful and not justified on the merits of the service and forum arguments. In family litigation, costs orders also serve as a deterrent against tactical applications that prolong proceedings, especially where the court is satisfied that the applicant has taken reasonable steps to serve the respondent and to bring the matter before the court.
What Was the Outcome?
The District Judge dismissed both applications brought by the Father under FC/SUM 1244/2025: the application to set aside service of the court papers and the application to stay the proceedings on forum non conveniens grounds. The court fixed costs at $3,000 to the Mother.
Practically, the decision means that the Mother’s custody proceedings in Singapore would continue, and the Father would not be able to avoid the Singapore court’s process by challenging substituted service or by persuading the court to defer to China as the forum. The interim injunction framework already in place would also remain relevant to the immediate protection of the children pending the final determination of the custody-related issues.
Why Does This Case Matter?
XRG v XRH is instructive for practitioners because it demonstrates how Singapore family courts handle procedural challenges in cross-border family disputes, particularly where substituted service is used. Substituted service is often sought in circumstances where personal service is frustrated by a respondent’s non-cooperation or evasiveness. The case underscores that a respondent’s assertion that he was physically outside Singapore at the time of substituted service may not, without more, justify setting aside service—especially where the court has already made an order for substituted service and the applicant has taken reasonable steps to effect service in accordance with that order.
For lawyers, the decision also highlights the importance of objective evidence in service disputes. The court’s reliance on ICA entry and exit records (as agreed by parties) illustrates a method for resolving factual disputes about location and timing. Practitioners should consider whether immigration records, travel itineraries, and other documentary evidence can be used to support or rebut claims about where a party was at the relevant time.
On forum non conveniens, the case is a reminder that stay applications are discretionary and fact-sensitive. In child-related proceedings, courts will be particularly attentive to the children’s actual circumstances, including schooling and day-to-day practicalities, and to whether the Singapore court can provide timely and effective relief. Where evidence suggests that the children are in Singapore and that the respondent has not provided transparent information about their location, the court may be reluctant to stay proceedings in favour of a foreign forum.
Finally, the case matters because it reflects the court’s broader approach to preventing procedural manoeuvres from undermining the welfare-focused objectives of family litigation. Even where parties are foreign nationals and the dispute has cross-border elements, Singapore courts will seek to ensure that proceedings are not derailed by service technicalities or by forum arguments that do not align with the practical realities on the ground.
Legislation Referenced
Cases Cited
- None stated in the provided extract.
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGFC 105 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.