LITT
Try LITT free
XML v XMM [2025] SGHCF 34
The court determined that the marriage was a dual-income marriage and applied the ANJ structured approach for the division of matrimonial assets, finding that the Wife was not the primary homemaker.
XNI v XNJ [2025] SGHCF 33
In a dual-income marriage, the court applies the ANJ v ANK framework for the division of matrimonial assets, assigning equal weight to direct and indirect contributions.
XNG v XNH [2025] SGHCF 32
The court held that a consent order may be varied without being set aside, but the applicant failed to demonstrate that the Consent Order was unworkable.
XIM v XIN [2025] SGHCF 31
The court has discretion to depart from the default valuation date for dissipated assets where there is a substantial time lapse between the dissipation and the commencement of divorce proceedings, such that the increase in value is not attributable to the dissipating party's con
XCV v XCW [2025] SGHCF 30
The court held that grave allegations against counsel must be supported by strong evidence and that the Indian court is the more appropriate forum for adjudicating assets located in India.
WWQ v WWR [2025] SGHCF 3
The court held that a downward variation of child maintenance requires proof of a material change in circumstances, and the mere assertion of increased expenses without evidence is insufficient.
XFN v XFO [2025] SGHCF 29
The court adjusted the indirect contribution ratio by ascribing a negative value to the Husband's conduct in obstructing the Wife's access to the child and inducing the compulsory acquisition of the matrimonial home.
XIU v XIV [2025] SGHCF 28
The court applied the global assessment methodology to divide matrimonial assets and determined that an adverse inference should be drawn against the husband for dissipating assets in contemplation of divorce.
XCQ v XCP [2025] SGHCF 26
Shared care and control orders are not normally ordered unless circumstances are exceptional, as they require parties to cooperate well, which is difficult in acrimonious relationships.
WGM v WGN [2025] SGHCF 23
The court held that the Interim Judgment date is the operative point for valuing matrimonial assets. Although the parties engaged in civil litigation afterward, the marriage had effectively ended. This maintains consistency in asset division timelines.
WVH and another v WVG and another appeal and other matters [2025] SGHCF 22
The court held that a settlement agreement regarding the appointment of deputies for a person lacking mental capacity is a binding contract that should be enforced when it is in the person's best interests, and that the children were more appropriate deputies for property and aff
UBQ v UBR [2025] SGHCF 20
An application to vary maintenance orders requires a material change in circumstances, and cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal against the original orders.
WPG v WPF [2025] SGHCF 19
A judge should not recuse himself from a case simply because a claim of bias is made, especially when the claim is based on procedural decisions made in the course of a trial.
XIW v XIX [2025] SGHCF 18
The court applied the ANJ structured approach to divide matrimonial assets in a dual-income marriage, determining that a 60:40 ratio in favour of the Wife for indirect contributions was equitable given her career sacrifices and primary role in housekeeping and child-rearing.
XJI v XJJ [2025] SGHCF 17
The court determined custody, care and control, and access arrangements for three children, and divided matrimonial assets using the global assessment method in a dual-income marriage.
XIK v XIL [2025] SGHCF 16
The judgment in XIK v XIL [2025] SGHCF 16 represents a comprehensive examination of the principles governing the division of matrimonial assets and the assessment of maintenance in the context of a single-income marriage of moderate duration. Spanning approximately ten and a half
WXD v WXC and another appeal and another matter [2025] SGHCF 14
The judgment in WXD v WXC [2025] SGHCF 14 represents a significant appellate clarification on the division of matrimonial assets, specifically addressing the characterization of critical illness insurance payouts and the stringent thresholds for adducing fresh evidence in family
XHG v XHH [2025] SGHCF 13
The court has discretion to award costs in family proceedings, and the duty of full and frank disclosure is paramount, with failure to disclose material information justifying indemnity costs.
WYL v WYK [2025] SGHCF 10
The court dismissed the appeal against the division of matrimonial assets and care and control orders, but set aside the child maintenance order due to the appellant's inability to work following a stroke.
Muhammad Izwan bin Borhan v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2025] SGCA 55
The Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions and sentences for drug trafficking, holding that the chain of custody was not broken and that the appellants' defences regarding the reduction of drug quantities and lack of knowledge were unsubstantiated.
Saminathan a/l Selvaraju v Attorney-General [2025] SGCA 54
A stay of execution will not be granted solely because there are pending legal proceedings, regardless of the merits of those proceedings, if the application for permission to make a post-appeal application in a capital case lacks reasonable prospects of success.
DMZ v DNA [2025] SGCA 52
The court has no power to intervene in ongoing arbitral proceedings to challenge procedural determinations made by an arbitral institution, as such intervention is not provided for in the IAA or the Model Law.
Wan Sern Metal Industries Pte Ltd v Hua Tian Engineering Pte Ltd [2025] SGCA 5
In a documents-only arbitration, where the procedure provides for pleadings, the tribunal must ensure procedural fairness by clarifying unpleaded issues with the parties, especially when the expedited nature of the proceedings may lead to a misunderstanding of the parties' positi
Soh Chee Wen v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2025] SGCA 49
The Court of Appeal affirmed that the offence of criminal conspiracy under s 120B of the Penal Code is a continuing offence, and that the Prosecution may frame separate charges for distinct conspiracies even if they relate to an overarching scheme.