LITT
Try LITT free
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.
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.
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.
WXO v WXP [2024] SGHCF 44
The court will not grant an extension of time to file a Record of Appeal if the appeal lacks merit or would result in a pyrrhic victory for the applicant.
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.
VQF v VQG [2024] SGHCF 4
The court determined the division of matrimonial assets based on a 58:42 ratio in favour of the Wife, after adjusting for undisclosed income.
WZK and another v WZJ and another appeal [2024] SGHCF 39
The court upheld the trial judge's findings of fact regarding the invalidity of a contested will, noting that the onus of proving the validity of a will lies on the party seeking to propound it.
WTP v WTQ [2024] SGHCF 38
The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof to show a material change in circumstances to justify a variation of the maintenance order, as he only provided financial statements of his company and failed to provide a full picture of his personal finances.
XEB v XEC [2024] SGHCF 37
The court determined the matrimonial asset pool and ordered a 50-50 division, while fixing spousal maintenance at a lump sum of $528,000 calculated using the Ong Chen Leng method.
XBO v XBP [2024] SGHCF 36
This case clarifies that medical conditions like dementia do not automatically invalidate a will. The court held that testamentary capacity remains if the testator understands the nature of their act, their property's extent, and potential beneficiary claims.
WYH v WYG [2024] SGHCF 34
An application to vary a consent order requires the applicant to show a material change of circumstances and sufficient evidence, and cannot be used as an alternative route to appeal an order out of time.
WTS v WTR and another appeal [2024] SGHCF 33
The court affirmed the division of matrimonial assets in a single-income marriage and clarified the treatment of pre-marital assets and dissipation of matrimonial funds.
WVN v WVO [2024] SGHCF 32
The court applied the 'time rule' to pro-rate stock options (PSUs) for inclusion in the matrimonial pool, using the period from the grant date to the IJ date as the numerator and the period from the grant date to the vesting date as the denominator.
WYQ v Child Protector [2024] SGHCF 31
The court affirmed the order for children to be placed in a place of safety under the Children and Youth Protection Act, finding that the mother was unable to properly care for or supervise them and that the appeal lacked merit.