sg-crest A Singapore Government Agency Website
Official website links end with
Secure websites use HTTPS
Look for a lock () or https:// as an added precaution. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
Note: To search for Hearing Details for a specified Case, click HERE.

Family Justice Courts Case Highlights

Showing results 1-10 of 114.

Anan Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co) [2019] SGCA 41

The fulfilment of the Ladd v Marshall conditions does not bind the court’s hands in admitting fresh evidence, and conversely the court is not prevented from admitting fresh evidence even in the absence of strict compliance with these conditions.
calendarDate of Decision: 23 Jul 2019

VIG v VIH [2020] SGHCF 16

Section 112(5)(d) of the Women’s Charter 1961 provides for orders to supplement and give effect to primary orders for division of matrimonial assets. Entitlements to shares may be treated as matrimonial assets (but not automatically so) depending on the nature of the conditions for entitlement.
calendarDate of Decision: 13 Oct 2020

UWL v UWM [2019] SGHCF 17

While default date for the identification of assets is the date of the interim judgment, the court may depart from that date in deserving cases, such as when parties separated and lived separate lives years before the interim judgment.
calendarDate of Decision: 30 Jul 2019

UPD v UPC [2019] SGHCF 25

The change of a name or surname of a child was a serious matter that requires compelling reasons before the court will allow for such change. There is a list of non-exhaustive factors that the court will consider. While a child’s name is a symbol of his identity, it is not the only connection between the child and his or her parent and a change of surname is not necessary for the child to know that he or she is a parent’s child.
calendarDate of Decision: 18 Dec 2019

CDV v CDW [2020] SGCA 100

Section 112(4) of the Women’s Charter only applies to orders made under the section, and does not have retrospective application. For a variation to be justified under s 112(4), there must be “exceptional reasons” in that the order was unworkable or has become unworkable.
calendarDate of Decision: 14 Oct 2020

UZO v UZP [2019] SGHCF 27

The contractual reasoning that parties who have jointly appointed an expert to adjudicate on a particular matter can only challenge that expert’s determination on the grounds of fraud or collusion does not apply in the family context.
calendarDate of Decision: 19 Dec 2019

Goh Yng Yng Karen (executrix of the estate of Liew Khoon Fong (alias Liew Fong), deceased) v Goh Yong Chiang Kelvin [2020] SGHC 195

The assessment of mental capacity is a holistic one involving functional and clinical components.
calendarDate of Decision: 17 Sep 2020

VGI v VGJ [2020] SGHCF 5

A caveator will not be liable for costs if he insists that the applicant of a grant of probate proves the formality of the will and if he wishes to cross-examine the witnesses. However, if the caveator goes beyond that and challenges the will, he now becomes the “mover” or “plaintiff” responsible for starting the contentious probate proceedings and as a result may be liable for security for costs.
calendarDate of Decision: 13 Feb 2020

UNQ v UNR [2020] SGHCF 21

That a personal protection order (“PPO”) may encourage more meaningful access is an irrelevant consideration, and the PPO may on the contrary negatively impact family relationships. The grant of a PPO involves a fact-centric analysis in determining if the threshold under s 65(1) of the Women’s Charter has been satisfied on a balance of probabilities.
calendarDate of Decision: 24 Nov 2020

ANH v ANI [2019] SGHC 170

Remarriage in itself is a change in circumstances but whether it is sufficient to merit a variation of the maintenance order requires further examination of the nature and extent of the change.
calendarDate of Decision: 22 Jul 2019

Share this page: