HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

CIVIL CASE NUMBER 003 OF 2001

IN THE MATTER OF ZHANG LISI WONG,
APPLICANT

AND

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER FOR CHANGE OF NAME IN RESPECT OF THE CHILD, MR DANIEL HU, AND INFANT.

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(PALMER J.)

HEARING: 1ST FEBRUARY 2001
JUDGMENT: 1ST FEBRUARY 2001

A & H LAWYERS FOR THE APPLICANT.

PALMER J.: I granted orders for change of name of the infant, Daniel Hu (“Daniel”) on 1st February 2001, and said I would publish reasons later. I now do so. This is an application for change of name of Daniel, by her mother, Zhang Lisi Wong (“Mrs Wong”). The child was born on 7th October 1992 to Mrs Wong and her husband then, the late Mr Hu Hon Liang (also known as Steven Hu). Mrs Wong and Steven Hu were married at the Central Magistrates’ Court on 8th August 1991. On 21st April 1993, Steven Hu died at the Central Hospital of bleeding and malaria. Mrs Wong re-married on 30th December 1997, to Mr Wong Chin Li (“Mr Wong”) of Malaysia. Mr Wong is currently the Administration Manager of Golden Spring International (SI) Limited (“Golden Spring”) Honiara. Daniel has since been in their care and custody together, as husband and wife. They also have a daughter of their own, Wong Yeu Ying, born in July 1999. Daniel has virtually come to be regarded as one of the members of the Wong Family although adoption options had not been considered. Mr and Mrs Wong intend to return to Malaysia at the end of Mr Wong’s employment with Golden Spring. They intend to take Daniel with them. 

Mr and Mrs Wong are Buddhists by religion, as well as Mr Wong’s family members in Malaysia. They are concerned there may not be ready acceptance for Daniel if he maintains his current name. Mr Wong has also deposed in his supporting affidavit filed 15th January 2001, that it would be naturally easier for his parents and relatives in Malaysia to accept Daniel if his name is changed to take on Mr Wong’s surname. Also for immigration, residency and citizenship purposes it is felt things would be easier if there is a name change. There are other benefits mentioned in the affidavit of Mr Wong at paragraph 5(d). 

The issue for determination is whether the application for change of name should be granted or not. This application has been commenced by Notice of Motion for orders that the name of the child, Daniel Hu be changed to Wong Yan Tou. The application is brought under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Learned Counsel, Mr Apaniai, for the Applicant has submitted to Court two helpful case authorities from the English jurisdiction on similar applications for change of name. The facts are quite similar. In Re T. (otherwise H.) (an infant) [1962] 3 All E.R. 970, a wife who had obtained divorce and custody of the daughter of marriage (aged ten years at the time of application) changed the surname of her child by deed-poll on her re-marriage, to the name of the new husband. She did this without consulting and getting the consent of the child’s father; her former husband. This was done on 24th August 1961. When the father became aware of the name change a couple of months later in September, he filed summons seeking orders inter alia, that the change was inoperative and for the child to retain his surname. The Court held in favour of the father, that if any right existed, it rested primarily with him as the natural guardian of the person of the infant. If the father were not alive or available, it rested with the legal guardian of the infant. The order granting custody in that case did not deprive the father of this right. The Court held the deed-poll was ineffective to change the infant’s surname.

In the second case submitted, Y v. Y (child: surname) [1973] 2 All ER 574, there were two girls, A and G, of the marriage. Mr and Mrs Y had divorced in August 1964 and custody of the children granted to Mrs Y. She re-married in January 1965. In July she arranged for the children to be known at school by the surname of her new husband, D. She did not consult the father of this arrangement. The father became aware of this change much later, and filed summons to have the change corrected. The matter was heard by court four years later in 1969. Latey J. held the surname could only be changed by agreement between the parents or in the absence of agreement, by decision of the court. He declined to grant the order sought however, holding that after a lapse of four years the matter had to be decided in a way which best served the interests of the children. He felt there was a real possibility of acute social embarrassment on the part of the elder child (13 years) if a further name change was made.

Applications for change of name are not governed by statute law in Solomon Islands. It seems there is also no statute of the United Kingdom Parliament, of general application and in force on 1st January 1961. The Regulations under which the deed-poll purporting to change the surname of the child in Re T’s Case (ibid) was specific to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and hence does not qualify under Schedule 3 to the Constitution of Solomon Islands. I am not aware of any previous case in which applications for change of name has been sought from this court. There may have been some but not brought to my attention. The more usual situation where a change of name had been effected that I am aware of is where an adoption order is obtained. The child then would be known by the surname of the adopted parents. To a certain extent the purpose of the name change sought by Mr and Mrs Wong is akin to an adoption order. It would divest the child of his ties with the relatives of his late father, not that this features any significantly here because little contact has been maintained since. Mrs Wong deposed in her affidavit filed 15th January 2001, that shortly after the death of Steven Hu, his parents who were quite old, returned to China. She has not heard from them since; no contacts or communication have been made. 

I pointed out during the hearing that it is possible the Applicant and her husband may be required later to formally adopt the child; that will depend on the laws of the country of their next destination. For the purposes of this application, I find no reason that would lead me to conclude other than that the order sought should be granted. The Applicant had done the right thing by coming to this Court to formalize the name change. She is the legal guardian of the child; the father now deceased. There are no close next of kin by which this Court may have required that notice be given of this application. All the evidence before me points in favour of the Applicant for a change of name for Daniel. I note the change of name had already been noted in the child’s new passport as of 9 October 2000 (see Annexure marked “ZLW7”). I am satisfied accordingly the order sought for change of name should be granted.

ORDERS OF THE COURT:

That the name of the child, Daniel Hu, born to the Applicant and Mr Hu Hon Liang at Central Hospital, Honiara, Solomon Islands on 7th October 1992, be changed from DANIEL HU to WONG YAN TOU.

THE COURT.