Judgment Header
BGT v BGU [2013] SGHC 50
Loading…
[2013] SGHC 50
General Division of the High Court of Singapore27 Feb 2013Divorce Suit No DT 5731 of 2009
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Cited in 8 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
“1C Mayfield in 2004. He submitted that they lived in Casuarina Cove as their matrimonial home, and highlighted that Casuarina Cove was their intended matrimonial home. The Husband relied on BGT v BGU [2013] SGHC 50 (“BGT v BGU”), which (at [28]) offered a negative answer to the question of whether a property transforme”
“BGT v BGU [2013] SGHC 50 (“BGT v BGU”) was a case where, shortly before the marriage in 1995, the husband bought an apartment unit in his sole name. After the marriage, the parties lived in this apartment until 2001 when the”
“This principle has since been applied in a series of subsequent decisions of the High Court: see Yong Shao Keat v Foo Jock Khim [2012] SGHC 107 at [10], BGT v BGU [2013] SGHC 50 at [40]–[41] and AZZ v BAA [2016] SGHC 44 (“AZZ v BAA”) at [140].”
“I agree with the Husband that the Pre-Marriage Properties cannot be excluded entirely from the matrimonial pool. Apart from BHN v BHO and THL v THM, the decisions of BGT v BGU [2013] SGHC 50 and UJF v UJG [2018] SGHCF 1 (“UJF v UJG”) also support the proposition that, in the context of s 112(10) of the Women’s Charter,”
“e pool of matrimonial assets an asset which would otherwise have fallen within that pool, but “[t]his is a power that is used very sparingly by the court and only in special circumstances”: BGT v BGU [2013] SGHC 50 at [34]. An example is the case of Ong Boon Huat Samuel v Chan Mei Lan Kristine [2007] 2 SLR(R) 729 (“Ong”
“no intention to return and live there. Further, the Husband manages the HDB Flat, pays all the outgoings and deposits the rental income in his sole account. He compares the present case to BGT v BGU [2013] SGHC 50 (“BGT v BGU”). In BGT v BGU, the husband purchased a property a few months prior to the marriage and paid”
“(ii) BGT v BGU [2013] SGHC 50 (“BGT”) –”
“therwise have fallen within that pool, but “[t]his is a power that is used very sparingly by the court and only in special circumstances” (WQP v WQQ [2024] 2 SLR 557 (“WQP”) at [16], citing BGT v BGU [2013] SGHC 50 at [34]). One such case was Ong Boon Huat Samuel v Chan Mei Lan Kristene [2007] 2 SLR(R) 729 (“Ong Boon H”
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
BGT v BGU [2013] SGHC 50
Case Metadata
Case No: Divorce Suit No DT 5731 of 2009
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2013-02-27
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.