LITT
Try LITT free
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.
XIS v XIT and another matter [2025] SGHCF 21
In XIS v XIT [2025] SGHCF 21, the court awarded the wife 51.5% of matrimonial assets after a 25-year marriage. The decision highlights the court's use of adverse inferences against a husband for non-disclosure and reaffirms that the ANJ v ANK structured approach remains a guide, not a rigid formula.
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.
Kee Cheong Keng v Dinh Thi Thu Hien [2025] SGHCF 15
In Kee Cheong Keng v Dinh Thi Thu Hien, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Family Law — Marriage.
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.
WVZ v WVY and another appeal and other matters [2025] SGHCF 12
In WVZ v WVY [2025] SGHCF 12, the High Court dismissed the husband's appeal and allowed the wife's appeal. The court clarified the evidentiary burden for adverse inferences and corrected a double-counting error involving linked foreign bank accounts, emphasizing the need for clear evidence.
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.
DIL v DIM [2024] SGHC 139
The court held that a material change in circumstances, such as retirement due to age or infirmity, can justify the variation of a maintenance order.
WPV v WPW [2024] SGHCF 9
The court held that there is no rigid rule requiring CPF refunds to be made before the division of sale proceeds of a matrimonial home; the court retains discretion to order repayment either before or after division, provided the final result reflects the ordered ratio.
WPK v WPJ [2024] SGHCF 8
In long, single-income marriages where the non-working spouse was the primary homemaker, it is generally fairer and more equitable for the matrimonial assets to be divided equally. Parents are not obliged to pay for post-graduate tertiary educational expenses as they are luxuries
VHK v VHL [2024] SGHCF 7
The court held that there is no legal basis to compel the Supreme Court to disclose a party's IP address in a private divorce proceeding, and that such information should not be released in aid of a private manhunt.
WQI v WQH and another appeal [2024] SGHCF 5
The court held that a consent order for care and control should not be varied without sufficient merit, and that divergent parenting styles are generally custody issues rather than care and control issues.
XGA v XGB [2024] SGHCF 47
In XGA v XGB [2024] SGHCF 47, the High Court adjusted the matrimonial asset division to 57.5-42.5 in the wife's favour due to the husband's non-disclosure. The court also ordered backdated maintenance and mandated the husband cover 80% of the children's monthly expenses.
TTZ v TTY [2024] SGHCF 46
The court held that a parent with care and control of a child is not in contempt of court for failing to facilitate access if the child's refusal to attend access is based on the child's own lived experience and the parent has made reasonable efforts to facilitate access.
XFF v XFG [2024] SGHCF 45
The court held that shared care and control is in the best interests of the children where parents live under the same roof, despite acrimony, to ensure a strong relationship with both parents.
XFD v XFE [2024] SGHCF 43
In XFD v XFE [2024] SGHCF 43, the High Court affirmed its jurisdiction to order maintenance for a child over 21 pursuing university education. The court clarified that Section 127 of the Women's Charter does not restrict its substantive power to ensure parental support for adult children.
XBF v XBE and another appeal [2024] SGHCF 42
The court held that in relocation cases, the issue of relocation should be determined as the primary inquiry, and care and control should be determined as part of that inquiry, rather than assuming relocation follows care and control.
WZN v WZM [2024] SGHCF 41
The court held that issue estoppel does not bar a variation of child maintenance where the issue of variation was not previously raised in enforcement proceedings. The court also affirmed that variation of maintenance can be backdated to the date of the application based on finan
WTL v WTM and another appeal [2024] SGHCF 40
The court affirmed the DJ's decision on care and control, adjusted the division of matrimonial assets to account for renovation costs and an adverse inference against the Husband, and dismissed appeals regarding child and spousal maintenance.