WBU v WBT

[2023] SGHCF 3 High Court (Family Division) 26 January 2023 HCF/DCA 28/2022 22 min read

9 cases cited Cited by 20 cases

Key facts

Court	High Court (Family Division)
Decided	26 January 2023
Judge	Debbie Ong
Charges / claim	Family Law
Counsel	Chia Wong Chambers LLC, Raymond Yeo, Darryl Chew Zijie, Wong Kai Yun, Yeo Khee Chye Raymond

Source: [2023] SGHCF 3, High Court (Family Division), decided 26 January 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Family Law — Maintenance — Child

Practice Areas

Family Law

Judges (1)

Debbie Ong Delivered

Counsel (5)

Chia Wong Chambers LLC Firm Raymond Yeo Firm Darryl Chew Zijie Counsel Appellant Wong Kai Yun Counsel Appellant Yeo Khee Chye Raymond Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

WBT Respondent WBU Appellant

Case Significance

WBU v WBT [2023] SGHCF 3 was decided in the General Division of the High Court (Family Division) by Debbie Ong JAD, in District Court Appeal (Family Division) No 28 of 2022, with the grounds of decision dated 26 January 2023. The judgment addressed legal principles on a parent's duty to maintain his or her child. The father (plaintiff) and mother (defendant) obtained an interim judgment of divorce on 4 November 2020 and had a child aged five. Under the ancillary matters order made on 24 February 2022, the District Judge ordered the father to pay the mother $1,035 monthly as child maintenance with effect from 28 February 2022, having found the child's reasonable maintenance to be $3,450 and apportioned it 70:30 between the mother and the father respectively. The mother appealed against that order, giving rise to HCF/DCA 28/2022. Access orders were later superseded by orders made on 4 March 2022, which included supervised visitation for the father at the Divorce Support Specialist Agency once a week for eight sessions.

[2023] SGHCF 3 explained

WBU v WBT ([2023] SGHCF 3) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (Family Division) on 26 January 2023. It is categorised under Family Law. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 20 other reported Singapore judgments, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2023] SGHCF 3 about?

WBU v WBT ([2023] SGHCF 3) is a High Court (Family Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Family Law — Maintenance — Child”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

How influential is [2023] SGHCF 3?

Within this corpus, [2023] SGHCF 3 has been cited by 20 later reported Singapore judgments. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.

Summary

This case concerned a mother's appeal against a child maintenance order following the parties' divorce, involving their five-year-old child. The District Judge had assessed the child's reasonable expenses at $3,450 and ordered the father to pay $1,035 monthly, apportioned 70:30 between the mother and father. On appeal, Debbie Ong JAD held that the child's reasonable expenses should be $4,000 and that maintenance should be apportioned in the proportion of 65:35 between the mother and father.

What child maintenance was ordered in WBU v WBT [2023] SGHCF 3?

The District Judge ordered the father to pay the mother $1,035 monthly in child maintenance from 28 February 2022, having found the child's reasonable maintenance to be $3,450 and apportioned it 70:30 between the mother and the father respectively.

What did WBU v WBT [2023] SGHCF 3 address?

Debbie Ong JAD addressed principles on a parent's duty to maintain a child in District Court Appeal (Family Division) No 28 of 2022, after the mother appealed the child maintenance order. The parents divorced on 4 November 2020 and had a five-year-old child.