LITT
Try LITT free
Mitsui E&S Power Systems Inc v Neptun International Pte Ltd and another (DBS Bank Ltd, non-party) [2024] SGHCR 3
The CAD Order prohibiting dealings with property under s 35(2)(b) of the CPC does not extinguish the creditor-debtor relationship between a bank and its account holder, and thus does not render the debt unattachable; it merely restricts the release of funds.
Moveon Technologies Pte Ltd v Crystal-Moveon Technologies Pte Ltd [2024] SGHCR 2
A defendant/stay applicant seeking a stay under s 6 of the Arbitration Act 2001 need only assert a dispute to establish a prima facie case; the court's discretion to refuse a stay under s 6(2) is only enlivened after the applicant has established this prima facie entitlement.
Tee Kim Leng and others v Hong Kah Ing [2024] SGHCR 13
In Tee Kim Leng v Hong Kah Ing [2024] SGHCR 13, the court dismissed an application for security for costs, ruling that a plaintiff's foreign residence alone is insufficient to warrant such an order when the claim is brought in good faith and appears strong.
The “Tina I” [2024] SGHCR 12
The court declined to order the inclusion of a sanctions clause in security provided by payment into court, as it was not supported by evidence, inconsistent with the legal consequences of payment into court, and would result in inadequate security for the claimant.
SBS Holdings, Inc v Anant Kumar Choudary and others (A2S Logistics Pte Ltd and another, non-parties) [2024] SGHCR 11
The court dismissed an application for security for costs against a foreign claimant, finding that the claimant's strong financial standing and significant business connections in Singapore made it likely that any adverse costs order would be voluntarily satisfied, and that the c
DJA v DJB [2024] SGHCR 10
A case management stay of court proceedings pending arbitration is discretionary and determined by a balancing exercise of factors, not a 'rare and compelling' threshold.
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.
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.
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.
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.