LITT
Try LITT free
UXL v UXM [2025] SGHCF 51
A lower court or tribunal is not bound by findings of fact made by another court, including the Court of Appeal, if it is obliged to make an independent determination. However, in an application for variation of maintenance, the applicant must show a substantial change of circums
XLK v XLJ [2025] SGHCF 50
The court dismissed an appeal against a custody order, applying the doctrine of comity of nations and finding that it was in the best interests of the child to be with the mother.
XEW v XEV [2025] SGHCF 5
The court held that habitual residence is a question of fact, and temporary absences for business or leisure do not break the continuity of habitual residence if the party maintains a settled purpose and base in the jurisdiction.
XOY v XOZ and another matter [2025] SGHCF 49
In XOY v XOZ [2025] SGHCF 49, the High Court denied spousal maintenance, ruling that the wife's share of matrimonial assets (59:41 split) was sufficient. The court established a direct maintenance regime for the child, emphasizing financial self-sufficiency over long-term dependency.
XII v XIJ [2025] SGHCF 48
The court dismissed the mother's appeal against a decision refusing relocation of the children, finding that the children's best interests were served by remaining in Singapore where they had stable arrangements and where both parents could maintain a close relationship.
WQG v WQF [2025] SGHCF 47
The court held that an ancillary matters order should only be varied if the original order is unworkable, and that lump sum child maintenance is generally inappropriate as it hinders future variations and does not serve the child's best interests.
XPG v XPH [2025] SGHCF 45
The court determined custody, care and control of the child, and divided matrimonial assets based on a 69:31 ratio in favour of the husband, accounting for his pre-marital assets.
VMG v VMH and another matter [2025] SGHCF 44
The court dismissed the appeal against the dismissal of an application for sole care and control, finding no evidence to support the Appellant's claims of the Respondent's unfitness.
XNM v XNN [2025] SGHCF 42
In XNM v XNN [2025] SGHCF 42, the court awarded an 80:20 matrimonial asset division in the Husband's favour. The decision highlights the court's use of adverse inferences against the Wife for non-disclosure of assets, balancing direct financial contributions against indirect non-financial roles.
XIB v XIA [2025] SGHCF 40
Pre-marital assets are not transformed into matrimonial assets by indirect non-financial contributions unless there is a direct causal link and the contribution has economic value.
XJO v XJP and another matter [2025] SGHCF 39
The court affirmed the District Judge's division of matrimonial assets, noting that the appellant failed to provide evidence to support his claims regarding direct and indirect contributions, and that the court's valuation of company shares based on net asset value was appropriat
XCZ v XDA [2025] SGHCF 38
The court held that a shared care and control order was inappropriate for young children requiring routine, and that a loan from a parent to a child for a matrimonial home is a loan to the child alone unless proven otherwise.
XOA v XOB [2025] SGHCF 37
In XOA v XOB [2025] SGHCF 37, the High Court awarded the Wife a 5% uplift in matrimonial asset division due to the Husband's non-compliance with discovery orders. The final ratio was adjusted to 43:57, emphasizing the court's power to draw adverse inferences against parties who conceal assets.
VBL v VBM [2025] SGHCF 36
A consent order for the division of matrimonial assets can be varied or set aside for fraudulent non-disclosure, but such fraud must be proven by compelling evidence. Where a party was aware of the possibility of non-disclosure at the time of settlement, they cannot later seek to
XLV v XLW [2025] SGHCF 35
The court dismissed the wife's appeal against the refusal to stay divorce proceedings, finding that Singapore had a more real and substantial connection to the parties and their children.
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.
XKT v XKU [2025] SGHCF 27
In XKT v XKU [2025] SGHCF 27, the High Court divided matrimonial assets 70:30 in favour of the Mother, valuing the pool at S$1.69M. The court also ordered monthly child maintenance of S$1,965 and clarified procedural requirements for seeking court-ordered counselling.