ZP v ZO
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Philip Pillai J |
Judgment Date | 21 December 2010 |
Neutral Citation | [2010] SGHC 364 |
Year | 2010 |
Docket Number | Divorce Suit No 3710 of 2009 |
Published date | 19 October 2011 |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Hearing Date | 05 April 2010,06 May 2010,13 May 2010 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Yap Teong Liang (TL Yap & Associates) |
Defendant Counsel | Foo Siew Fong (Harry Elias Partnership) |
Citation | [2010] SGHC 364 |
This was an application for custody, care and control as well as division of matrimonial assets. I will set out the grounds of my decision firstly on custody, care and control and then on the division of matrimonial assets.
Custody, Care and ControlFollowing the parties’ separation, the District Judge (“DJ”) made an interim order for care, control and access of the three children on 7 October 2008 in the following terms:
The husband appealed against the DJ’s orders to the High Court which made the following orders which were in place up until to the of the hearing of the application:
In the light of the above and given that family matters are fact-based and contextual, I considered the following to be significant factors and considerations in this particular case: the three children are all daughters with the two older daughters being young teenagers. Quite apart from the emotional impact of their parents’ divorce, I think it is important that there be some degree of continuity, certainty and stability in their upbringing during their teenage years. I noted that the decisions relating to the children’s education and religious upbringing have been made during the marriage and see no reason to change them. It is also equally important that both...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
ZO v ZP
...in respect of custody, care and control of the children of the marriage, maintenance and division of matrimonial assets (see ZP v ZO [2010] SGHC 364 (‘the GD’)). The Judge had made the following orders with regard to the issue of custody, care and control (which includes access orders) (see......
-
Family Law
...in ZO v ZP[2011] 3 SLR 647 (ZO (CA)) stressed the importance of the principles enunciated therein. The High Court decision of ZP v ZO[2010] SGHC 364 was criticised in last year's review (see (2010) 11 SAL Ann Rev 368 at paras 15.1815.19). Sole custody was granted by the High Court together ......