Judgment Header
THL v THM [2015] SGHCF 11
Court DecisionSGHCF
[2015] SGHCF 11
[2015] SGHCF 11
Family Division of the High Court of Singapore9 Nov 2015Divorce (Transferred) No [X]
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 6 later decisions. 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
6Later cases and laws citing this decision
“nd himself accepted in his written submissions, the court is generally not concerned with the source of funds used to acquire an asset so long as it was acquired during the marriage (citing THL v THM [2015] SGHCF 11 at [44]).”
“marriage. That to my mind would count as acquisition, and such assets would be part of the matrimonial pool under s 112(10)(b) of the Women’s Charter (see BHN v BHO [2013] SGHC 91 at [36]; THL v THM [2015] SGHCF 11 at [40]). However, for such acquisition, the court should not take the whole of the value of the asset, b”
“er. This is because the Wife had continued to pay mortgage instalments for these properties during the marriage. In this regard, the Husband cites BHN v BHO [2013] SGHC 91 (“BHN v BHO”) and THL v THM [2015] SGHCF 11 (“THL v THM”) as authorities for the proposition that a property purchased prior to the marriage may con”
“lso took on a greater role with the Child than the Wife did (see BUX v BUY [2019] SGHCF 4 which the Husband cited). Neither of the two other High Court authorities cited by the Husband (ie, THL v THM [2015] SGHCF 11 and UGG v UGH (M.W.) [2017] SGHCF 25) justified shifting the ratio of indirect contributions in the Husb”
“(e) In THL v THM [2015] SGHCF 11 (“THL”), the court answered the above question in the negative.”
Show 1 moreShow fewer
“Against this, the Wife cited THL v THM [2015] SGHCF 11 (“THL”) in support of her submission that the source of funds is irrelevant. In that case, the husband sought to exclude two properties from the matrimonial pool. Like the Stevens Close Property in t”
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: Divorce (Transferred) No [X]
Case Metadata
Court: Family Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2015-11-09
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Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.