Judgment Header
ADL v ADM [2014] SGHC 95
Court DecisionSGHC
[2014] SGHC 95
[2014] SGHC 95
General Division of the High Court of Singapore9 May 2014Originating Summons (Family) No 365 of 2013 (Registrar's Appeal from the State Courts No 20 of 2014)
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 1 later decision. 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
1Later cases and laws citing this decision
“espondent does not have such support from her own family members. All these factors support the finding that shared care and control is in the child’s best interests. Ms Hoon also refers to ADL v ADM [2014] SGHC 95 (“ADL”) and UPK v UPL [2018] SGFC 92 (“UPK”). In ADL, I extended the father’s access time because the 2-y”
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: Originating Summons (Family) No 365 of 2013 (Registrar's Appeal from the State Courts No 20 of 2014)
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2014-05-09
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Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.