Judgment Header
AYM v AYL [2012] SGCA 68
Court DecisionSGCA
[2012] SGCA 68
[2012] SGCA 68
Court of Appeal of Singapore23 Nov 2012Civil Appeal No 21 of 2012
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 4 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
How this case connects
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Cited by
4Later cases and laws citing this decision
“1 at [14]). Even if a change is considered to be material, that, in itself, does not automatically attract curial intervention of an earlier court order. As noted by the Court of Appeal in AYM v AYL [2012] SGCA 68 (“AYM”) (at [25]), it would only be in a situation where new circumstances have emerged since the order wa”
“In AYM v AYL [2012] SGCA 68; [2013] 1 SLR 924 (“AYM”), the Court of Appeal made the following observations:”
“In AYM v AYL [2012] SGCA 68; [2013] 1 SLR 924, the Court of Appeal made the following observations at [11], [12], [15], [22], [23], [25] and [27] to [30]:”
“The ambit of section 112(4) of the Women’s Charter 1961 was explained in detail by the Court of Appeal in AYM v AYL [2012] SGCA 68; [2013] 1 SLR 924 (“AYM v AYL”), and is summarised in the following passage from WRP v WRQ [2023] SGHCF 12 at [4]:”
Authorities cited
0Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Case Metadata
Case No: Civil Appeal No 21 of 2012
Case Metadata
Court: Court of Appeal of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2012-11-23
Something wrong on this page?
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.