[2015] SGHCF 10

“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].”