Popular keywords

Family Justice Courts Case Highlights

Showing results 1-10 of 95.

VXM v VXN [2021] SGHCF 37

A party cannot be said to have neglected to provide maintenance if one has provided a reasonable lump sum of money for one’s spouse and children. The lump sum should be used for reasonable daily expenses, which includes rent for reasonable accommodation, but must be accounted for.
calendarDate of Decision: 10 Nov 2021

VWW v VWX [2021] SGHCF 35

The court can exercise its discretion to enter final judgment even though ancillaries have not been resolved but only under exceptional grounds, using equity as a guide.
calendarDate of Decision: 22 Oct 2021

VTP v VTO [2021] SGHCF 36

Impecuniosity itself cannot justify a divorce by unreasonable behavior. The focus of the analysis is on whether a spouse finds it intolerable to continue living with the other spouse, and whether a reasonable spouse in a similar situation can be expected to live with the other spouse.
calendarDate of Decision: 22 Oct 2021

UJM v UJL [2021] SGHC(A) 10

Additional relief may still be granted by the court, whether in the domestic context or in an application under Ch 4A, if it is in the interest of justice to do so. The court will take into account the interests of parties and the children. While a settlement agreement in contemplation of divorce is not a conclusive factor in the determination of financial relief, the court has discretion to decide on what weight to give to it and will always examine the precise circumstances when making its decision.
calendarDate of Decision: 26 Aug 2021

TOT v TOU [2021] SGHC(A) 9

The court ought not to make further adjustments to the parties’ final contribution ratios after applying the ANJ v ANK framework.
calendarDate of Decision: 25 Aug 2021

CLT v CLS [2021] SGHCF 29

Generally, interspousal gifts that do not originate from a third-party gift or inheritance are not gifts within the definition of s 112(10) of the Women’s Charter 1961. The nature and context in which the inter-spousal gift was made can be taken into consideration by the court when making a just and equitable division. The court has discretion to exclude de minimis gifts. Whether a gift is de minims gifts is not limited to its absolute value, but also its relative value as compared to the entire pool of matrimonial assets.
calendarDate of Decision: 13 Aug 2021

VJP v VJQ [2021] SGCA 82

Subject to certain qualifications, if there is a change in the composition of the pool of matrimonial assets on appeal, the appellate court should recompute the ratio of parties’ contributions and the overall division ratio.
calendarDate of Decision: 12 Aug 2021

TOF v TOE [2021] SGCA 80

The court will draw an adverse inference where full and frank disclosure of assets is not made, and in doing so, the court must identify parties’ assets and determine their values, unless the available evidence is so minimal as to make such an exercise pointless.
calendarDate of Decision: 10 Aug 2021

VTU v VTV [2021] SGHCF 28

The paramount consideration in a relocation application is the welfare of the child. The reasonable wishes of the primary caregiver as well as the concern that the relocated children will have less access and interaction with the left-behind parent are important factors but not determinative. The court may still disallow a relocation application if it is unreasonable and done in bad faith.
calendarDate of Decision: 10 Aug 2021

VLI v VLJ [2021] SGHCF 27

It is inappropriate for one to seek a long term immigration status in Singapore for oneself through an application under s 5 of the Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122, 1985 Rev Ed1934), if the order sought is not linked to the custody application and in the child’s welfare. Additionally, the location where a child is raised is a parental decision in which the courts interfere only to ensure the child’s welfare and assist the family in moving forward.
calendarDate of Decision: 28 Jul 2021

Share this page:
Facebook
Twitter
Email
Print