Judgment Header
AQT v AQU [2011] SGHC 138
Loading…
[2011] SGHC 138
General Division of the High Court of Singapore27 May 2011Divorce Suit No DT 5783 of 2007/H
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Cited in 12 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Later cases and laws citing this decision
“t “[i]f [a party] had incurred legal fees on the divorce and ancillary proceedings, he should have used his own assets to pay them first and not matrimonial assets” (at [43]). Similarly, in AQT v AQT [2011] SGHC 138, Lai Siu Chiu J did not accept S/N XNt9UmI7mUGMqrkCoiddlw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify”
“sideration. The courts have been more willing to adopt Option 1 where the trust is settled for the legitimate purpose of safeguarding matrimonial assets for the children of the marriage. In AQT v AQU [2011] SGHC 138 (“AQT v AQU”), the husband had settled an irrevocable trust within the same week of asking the wife for”
“ncurs legal fees on divorce and ancillary proceedings ought to use his own assets, rather than matrimonial assets, to pay for them first (see WUA v WUB [2024] SGHCF 10 (“WUA v WUB”) at [8]; AQT v AQU [2011] SGHC 138 at [37]). Given that the Husband has not disputed that these ETF holdings are matrimonial assets, the pa”
“i]f [a party] had incurred legal fees on the divorce and ancillary proceedings, he should have used his own assets to pay for them first and not matrimonial assets” (at [43]). Similarly, in AQT v AQU [2011] SGHC 138, Lai Siu Chiu J did not accept that the Wife’s legal fees for matrimonial proceedings could be deducted”
“k” into the pool of assets. The Wife states that she has incurred around $13,000 while the Husband has incurred around $230,000. The Wife’s request is not wrong as a matter of principle. In AQT v AQU [2011] SGHC 138, the High Court held at [37] that:”
“(h) Concerning category 12, legal fees are generally not deducted from the pool of matrimonial assets, lest any cost order rendered be made nugatory: AQT v AQU [2011] SGHC 138 at [37]. Therefore, I do not accept that the expenses in category 12 is validly incurred.”
“ings, which should be settled by the parties out of their own share of the matrimonial assets after division, and not taken out of the matrimonial pool (see UFU ([8] supra) at [105], citing AQT v AQU [2011] SGHC 138 at [37]). There is no justification for treating the Husband’s legal costs any differently from the Wife”
“of their own share of the matrimonial assets after division, and not taken out of the matrimonial pool (UZN v UZM [2021] 1 SLR 426 at [44]-[45]; UFU (M.W.) v UFV [2017] SGHCF 23 at [105] ; AQT v AQU [2011] SGHC 138 at [37]). As such, I add $95,112.69 (which the Wife paid to her previous solicitors) back as matrimonial”
“eral position appears to be that the court “in ordering costs must be sensitive that the cost order does not run contrary to the no-fault basis that underlies our jurisprudence on divorce”: AQT v AQU [2011] SGHC 138 at [57], cited in JBB v JBA [2015] 5 SLR 153 at [18]. On the present facts, I do not see any reason for”
“s that the parties bear their own costs. This is because our courts seek to ensure that costs orders are in line with the no-fault basis that underlies Singapore’s jurisprudence on divorce: AQT v AQU [2011] SGHC 138 at [57]. In this case, however, the Husband has wilfully refused to disclose information, such as the ex”
“Generally, parties in divorce proceedings are ordered to bear their own costs. This is in line with the no-fault basis that underlies Singapore’s jurisprudence on divorce: AQT v AQU [2011] SGHC 138 at [57]. In this case, however, the Husband has wilfully refused to disclose information in breach of the Discovery Order.”
“I am cognisant that any order as to costs should not run contrary to the no-fault basis underlying Singapore’s jurisprudence on divorce: AQT v AQU [2011] SGHC 138 at [57]. Notwithstanding, in view of the egregious manner in which the Husband delayed his explanations of certain expenditures and disclosure of documents (”
Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Judgment Header
AQT v AQU [2011] SGHC 138
Case Metadata
Case No: Divorce Suit No DT 5783 of 2007/H
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2011-05-27
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.