YGT v YGU
Key facts
| Court | Family Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Marcus Ho |
| Charges / claim | Family Law |
| Counsel | CK Tan Law Corporation, Esteem Law LLC, Jocinda Wong Jia Heng, Samuel Chong, Toh Siew Sai Thomas |
Source: [2026] SGFC 111, Family Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (5)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
YGT v YGU [2026] SGFC 111 was decided by District Judge Marcus Ho in the Family Court on 17 August 2026, after hearings on 28 May 2026 and 23 June 2026. The parties married on 14 September 2008, the Wife commenced divorce proceedings on 29 July 2024, and the interim judgment was granted on 12 September 2024. Only the division of matrimonial assets remained. The issues were whether the parties had settled the division by email, and whether the marriage was dual-income or single-income. The court found no agreement, valued the pool at $1,236,797.03, treated it as a single-income marriage, and divided the assets 70% to the Wife and 30% to the Husband, with each party to bear their own costs.
Summary
The Family Court dealt with the division of matrimonial assets between a wife (YGT) and a husband (YGU) after a marriage of about 16 years. It found no concluded agreement on division, fixed the net asset pool at $1,236,797.03, and held this was a single-income marriage, so the structured approach in ANJ v ANK did not apply. The court divided the pool 70% to the Wife and 30% to the Husband, with the Wife to pay him $356,629.24 for the Matrimonial Home. Each party bore their own costs.
How were matrimonial assets divided in YGT v YGU [2026] SGFC 111?
The Family Court divided the pool of $1,236,797.03 in the proportion of 70% to the Wife and 30% to the Husband, ordering the Wife to pay the Husband $356,629.24 on transfer of the Matrimonial Home to her.
Was YGT v YGU a single-income or dual-income marriage ([2026] SGFC 111)?
District Judge Marcus Ho found it was a single-income marriage because the Husband was unemployed for around 12 out of 16 years of the marriage, so the structured approach in ANJ v ANK was not applied.
Cases Cited (4)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments on the same subject, most closely matched first.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGFC 111)