Author: seancheng2023

Owner of the vessel(s) “CHLOE V” v UBS AG [2026] 1 SLR 107 lays down a framework under Order 21 rule 2(6) of the Rules of Court 2021 for situations where, after losing its case, the unsuccessful party not only refuses to pay the costs ordered against it but also files an appeal, compelling the successful party to incur further costs while remaining out of pocket from the proceedings below. Once a respondent shows that an appellant has refused or neglected to pay outstanding costs, the burden shifts to the appellant to provide a good reason why a stay of proceedings should not be granted. If no good reason is given, a stay will ordinarily follow, with the appeal to be automatically struck out if costs remain unpaid beyond a certain period.

XKT v XKU [2026] SGHC(A) 7 clarifies the distinction between “single income” and “dual-income” marriages in Singapore family law – such classification determines the approach for the division of assets between the divorcing spouses under the Women’s Charter 1961 (2020 Rev Ed). The Appellate Division of the High Court emphasized that the inquiry does not simply turn on whether one spouse was the “primary homemaker” and the other the “primary breadwinner”. Instead, the court will consider whether the homemaking role caused the homemaker-spouse to lose the opportunity to earn income that could otherwise have been recognized as direct financial contributions under ANJ v ANK [2015] 4 SLR 1043, and thereby be disadvantaged. This was ultimately a fact-sensitive inquiry requiring a qualitative assessment of the spouses’ respective roles during the marriage.

In Piper, Martin v Singapore Kindness Movement [2025] 5 SLR 293, the appellant Mr Piper complained to Singapore Kindness Movement ("SKM") that a Ms Carol Loi was promoting discriminatory material in a Telegram group chat with a similar name to an SKM affiliate organisation. During its investigation, SKM disclosed Mr Piper's identity and email to Ms Loi without his consent, which Mr Loi alleged was a breach of the Personal Data Protection Act 2012. The High Court held that while Mr Piper was deemed to have consented to the use of his personal data for the purpose of investigating his complaint, SKM's disclosures to Ms Loi exceeded the scope of that deemed consent and were unreasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, SKM was found to have breached sections 13 and 18(a) of the PDPA.