LITT
Try LITT free
XMU v XMV [2026] SGHCF 8
The court held that while a pre-nuptial agreement is a relevant factor under s 112 of the Women's Charter, it does not detract from the court's ultimate power to divide assets equitably, and the weight accorded depends on the circumstances of execution.
XNE v XNF [2026] SGHCF 7
The court held that an adverse inference can be drawn against a party who fails to comply with discovery orders, and that renovation expenses incurred shortly after property acquisition constitute direct contributions.
XON v XOM and another appeal [2026] SGHCF 6
The court clarified the criteria for admitting fresh evidence on appeal in family proceedings, distinguishing between post-hearing evidence (perceptible impact test) and pre-hearing evidence (Ladd v Marshall test), and emphasised that material changes in circumstances should be a
XNG v XNH [2026] SGHCF 4
Indemnity costs are not warranted in family law disputes where the conduct, while reprehensible, does not meet the high threshold of unreasonableness, and standard costs are sufficient.
WPG v WPF [2026] SGHCF 2
The court dismissed the appellant's appeal against an interim judgment for divorce, finding that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and that the appellant had no genuine intention to pursue the appeal, given his pattern of serial heart failures coinciding with court proce
WTU v WTV [2025] SGHCF 8
The High Court dismissed an appeal against a District Judge's orders regarding the division of matrimonial assets and maintenance. The court found no errors in the lower court's exercise of discretion, affirming the original judgment in its entirety.
XBV v XBU [2025] SGHCF 7
The court held that an appeal against a subsequent clarification order that does not change the substantive effect of an earlier order is procedurally defective if the time to appeal the earlier order has expired.
XKG v XKF [2025] SGHCF 66
A donor lacks mental capacity to execute an LPA if they cannot understand, retain, and weigh information relevant to the decision, including the nature, purpose, and legal effect of the LPA and the consequences of granting authority to a donee.
XVI v XVJ and another [2025] SGHCF 65
In XVI v XVJ and another [2025] SGHCF 65 , the General Division of the High Court (Family Division) addressed the rigorous financial consequences attending a trustee’s failure to manage estate assets with due diligence. The dispute centered on the administration of a deceased’s e
XUW v XUX [2025] SGHCF 64
The court determined the division of matrimonial assets based on direct and indirect contributions, excluding pre-marital and gifted assets, and ordered the transfer of assets to the husband while refunding the wife's direct contribution.
XQN v XQO [2025] SGHCF 63
An anti-suit injunction may be granted to restrain a party from continuing foreign proceedings if the local court is the appropriate forum and the foreign proceedings were commenced to frustrate local proceedings or engage in forum shopping, but comity generally precludes interfe
XCG v XCF and another matter [2025] SGHCF 62
The court held that fresh evidence must satisfy the Ladd v Marshall test and that a marriage where one party is the primary income earner and the other is the homemaker is a single-income marriage.
XRV v XRW [2025] SGHCF 61
The court determined the division of matrimonial assets in a dual-income marriage, applying the ANJ v ANK structured approach, and found that the Wife was entitled to a 67.285% share based on her significant indirect financial and non-financial contributions.
WZT v WZU and another matter [2025] SGHCF 6
Unemployment is not a determinative factor in assessing child maintenance obligations, and the onus remains on the parent to provide evidence of financial means and efforts to seek employment.
XLX v XLZ and another [2025] SGHCF 56
The court held that an executor is liable to furnish an account on a common basis, and that while the court may make allowances for a lay trustee's accounting, the trustee must provide proper justification and documentation for their actions.
XRM v XRN [2025] SGHCF 55
The court determined that the value of investments in matrimonial assets should be assessed at the date of the Ancillary Matters hearing, and that the doctrine of illegality bars the enforceability of a resulting trust arising from an illegal tax planning purpose.
VBR v VBS [2025] SGHCF 54
The court held that child maintenance should be based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, and that personal expenses of a parent should not be a factor in determining child maintenance unless there is a sudden decrease in earnings.
XLM v XLN [2025] SGHCF 53
The Singapore court should be slow to intervene in interim maintenance applications when divorce proceedings are pending in a more appropriate forum (India).
VTP v VTO [2025] SGHCF 52
The court dismissed an application for a further extension of time to file a notice of appeal, emphasizing the importance of finality in litigation and the failure of the applicant to provide strong justification for the delay.
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.
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.