Judgment Header
TGT v TGU [2015] SGHCF 10
Loading…
[2015] SGHCF 10
Family Division of the High Court of Singapore22 Oct 2015Registrar's Appeal (Family Courts) No 22 of 2015
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Cited in 4 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
“the Charter (see, for example, Sanjeev Sharma s/o Shri Sarvjeet Sharma v Surbhi Ahuja d/o Sh Virendra Kumar Ahuja [2015] 3 SLR 1056; TDX v TDY [2015] 4 SLR 982; BDA v BDB [2013] 1 SLR 607; TGT v TGU [2015] SGHCF 10 (“TGT v TGU”)). Unlike the present case, however, these cases concerned concurrent proceedings in Singapo”
“orum is consistent with the welfare principle because the relevant inquiry is which court is “best placed” to determine the welfare of the child: TDX v TDY [2015] 4 SLR 982 (“TDX”) at [51]; TGT v TDU [2015] SGHCF 10 (“TGT”) at [61].”
“here it is not time barred as a matter of practical justice. It has been noted that a time bar situation may be overcome by a defendant providing an undertaking not to rely on the time bar (TGT v TGU [2015] SGHCF 10 at [42]). In this regard, the Koch Entities do not voluntarily undertake not to rely on the time bar in”
“(i) Where Singapore law allows child maintenance until age 21, whereas the foreign law limits it to age 18: TGT v TGU [2015] SGHCF 10 (“TGT”) at [54], [58] and [59].”
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
TGT v TGU [2015] SGHCF 10
Case Metadata
Case No: Registrar's Appeal (Family Courts) No 22 of 2015
Case Metadata
Court: Family Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2015-10-22
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.