Judgment Header
AD v AE (minors: custody, care, control and access) [2005] SGHC 30
Court DecisionSGHC
[2005] SGHC 30
[2005] SGHC 30
General Division of the High Court of Singapore4 Feb 2005D 3849/2000, RAS 720041/2003
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 2 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
2Later cases and laws citing this decision
“s view in the judgment of Ravindra Bhat J in Shri Rohit Shekhar v. Shri Narayan Dutt Tivoari & Anor A No 4720/2008 ………….. and we concur with his views. [293] In Singapore, Choo Han Teck J in AD v AE [2005] SGHC 30; [2005] 2 SLR 180 (a case prior to the amendment of the section 114 of the Singapore Evidence Act) said: “”
“evidence could be dealt with as a matter of evidential procedure. Scientific DNA evidence remained relevant alongside the presumption of paternity (AD v AE (minors: custody, care, control and access) [2005] SGHC 30).”
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: D 3849/2000, RAS 720041/2003
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2005-02-04
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Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.