WQP v WQQ
Key facts
| Court | High Court (Family Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi |
| Charges / claim | Family Law |
| Counsel | Harry Elias Partnership, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, Charis Sim Wei Li, Foo Siew Fong, Kee Lay Lian, Shawn Teo Kai Jie, Yoon Min Joo |
Source: [2023] SGHCF 49, High Court (Family Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (7)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
WQP v WQQ [2023] SGHCF 49 is a judgment of the General Division of the High Court (Family Division) by Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi J, delivered on 10 November 2023 in Divorce (Transferred) No 1572 of 2020. The husband and wife married on 5 May 2010 in Hong Kong, and after an uncontested interim judgment granted on 29 September 2020 on both parties' unreasonable behaviour, the marriage lasted around 10 years and five months. Hearing the ancillary matters, the court addressed custody, care and control, access, division of matrimonial assets and maintenance for the wife and child, noting the husband's part-time monthly income of about S$2,640.83 and net rental of USD$3,173 from a Los Angeles apartment. The judgment cites 38 Singapore authorities.
[2023] SGHCF 49 explained
WQP v WQQ ([2023] SGHCF 49) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (Family Division) on 10 November 2023. It is categorised under Family Law. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 3 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 49 about?
WQP v WQQ ([2023] SGHCF 49) is a High Court (Family Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Family Law — Custody — Access”, “Family Law — Maintenance — Wife”, “Family Law — Maintenance — Child”, and “Family Law — Custody — Care and control”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2023] SGHCF 49 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2023] SGHCF 36 and [2023] SGHCF 9. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
How influential is [2023] SGHCF 49?
Within this corpus, [2023] SGHCF 49 has been cited by 3 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 concerned the ancillary matters following the divorce of a husband and wife married about 10 years and five months, with two children. The court divided the matrimonial assets in the ratio 55.16% to 44.84%, requiring the husband to transfer S$1,024,495.79 to the wife and ordering their Los Angeles apartment sold. Parties were given joint custody with the wife having sole care and control, no maintenance for the wife, and S$2,980 monthly maintenance for the children.
What was WQP v WQQ [2023] SGHCF 49 about?
It was a Family Division judgment by Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi J resolving ancillary matters in a divorce, covering custody, care and control, access, division of matrimonial assets and maintenance for the wife and child, after a marriage of around 10 years and five months.
What income did the husband have in WQP v WQQ ([2023] SGHCF 49)?
The husband drew about S$2,640.83 monthly from part-time work as a non-executive director and collected net rental income of USD$3,173 from an apartment in Los Angeles, while the wife maintained he had other undisclosed sources of income, per [2023] SGHCF 49.
Cases Cited (38)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2023] SGHCF 49)