LITT
Try LITT free
TYA v TYB [2017] SGHCF 29
In TYA v TYB, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Family law — Ancillary powers of court.
UBW v UBX [2017] SGHCF 26
In UBW v UBX, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Family law — Matrimonial assets.
UGG v UGH (M.W.) [2017] SGHCF 25
In UGG v UGH (M.W.), the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Family Law -Matrimonial assets -Division, Family Law — Maintenance -Wife.
WHI v WHJ [2017] SGHCF 24
In WHI v WHJ, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Family law — Consent orders.
UFU (M.W.) v UFV [2017] SGHCF 23
In UFU (M.W.) v UFV, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Family Law -Matrimonial assets -Division, Family Law — Maintenance -Wife.
UFM v UFN [2017] SGHCF 22
In UFM v UFN, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Family law — Ancillary powers of court, Statutory interpretation — Construction of statute.
TSH and another v TSE and another and another appeal and another matter [2017] SGHCF 21
In TSH and another v TSE and another and another appeal and another matter, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Family law — Wrongful retention, Family law — Wardship.
TPY v TPZ and another appeal [2017] SGHCF 2
In TPY v TPZ and another appeal, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Family law — Matrimonial assets.
TJR v TJS [2017] SGHCF 19
In TJR v TJS, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Family law — Matrimonial assets.
TBZ v TCA [2017] SGHCF 18
In TBZ v TCA, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Family law — Matrimonial assets, Family law — Maintenance.
UDF v UDG [2017] SGHCF 17
In UDF v UDG, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Family law — Custody.
UDA v UDB and another [2017] SGHCF 16
In UDA v UDB and another, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Family law — Matrimonial assets, Family law — Matrimonial proceedings.
UBD v UBE [2017] SGHCF 14
In UBD v UBE, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Family law — Matrimonial assets, Family law — Maintenance.
UBM v UBN [2017] SGHCF 13
In UBM v UBN, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Family Law — Matrimonial Assets, Family law — Maintenance of Wife.
TUC v TUD [2017] SGHCF 12
In TUC v TUD, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Family Law — Child, International Law — Conventions.
UAP v UAQ [2017] SGHCF 11
In UAP v UAQ, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Family law — Matrimonial assets, Family law — Maintenance.
TVJ v TVK [2017] SGHCF 1
In TVJ v TVK, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Family law — Matrimonial assets, Family law — Maintenance.
George Sapooran Singh v Gordip d/o MD Garsingh [2016] SGHC 197
In George Sapooran Singh v Gordip d/o MD Garsingh, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Family Law — Maintenance.
ATS v ATT [2016] SGHC 196
In ATS v ATT, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Family law — Maintenance, Family law — Child.
TUV v TUW [2016] SGHCF 15
In TUV v TUW, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Family Law — Custody, Family Law -Matrimonial assets -Division.
CSW v CSX [2022] SGHC 223
In CSW v CSX, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Family law — Maintenance.
WAH v WAG and another appeal [2022] SGHCF 9
Interlocutory orders in family proceedings are temporary and should not be lightly appealed against, as they are discretionary and intended to preserve the status quo pending the final hearing.
VLI v VLJ [2022] SGHCF 8
A dispute over a child's citizenship is a matter pertaining to custody, not care and control. Sole custody is only ordered in exceptional circumstances, and acrimony alone is insufficient to justify it.
VUQ v VUP [2022] SGHCF 6
The court dismissed the husband's appeal against the division of matrimonial assets, finding that the transfer of the matrimonial home to the wife was equitable and would not leave the husband homeless.