[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-639399-105":59,"doc-detail-639399-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","tq-v-tr-case-ca-932007-942007-court-of-appeal-decision-03-february-2009","TQ v TR - Case CA 93/2007, 94/2007 - Court of Appeal decision 03 February 2009","","Court of Appeal decision in an appeal from ancillary orders made in a divorce petition. The parties were Dutch and Swedish citizens, married in the Netherlands under a prenuptial agreement executed in 1991 that provided for no community of property. Central issues included the choice-of-law and the validity of the prenuptial agreement under Dutch law, the relevance of domicile in determining governing law, and the weight to be given to foreign prenuptial agreements when dividing matrimonial assets under s 112 of the Women’s Charter. The judgment also addressed custody, care and control, child maintenance, and wife’s maintenance arrangements.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/tq-v-tr-case-ca-932007-942007-court-of-appeal-decision-03-february-2009/639399/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/tq-v-tr-case-ca-932007-942007-court-of-appeal-decision-03-february-2009/639399.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Malam Tenang","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-10-22",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":14},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What was the prenuptial agreement and what property regime did it provide for?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The prenuptial agreement executed in 1991 stated that there was to be no community of property.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"Which key legal issues did the Court of Appeal address?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The Court addressed governing law and validity of the prenuptial agreement, whether domicile mattered for the governing law determination, and what weight should be given to the foreign prenuptial agreement for dividing matrimonial assets under s 112 of the Women’s Charter.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What ancillary matters were decided in the earlier judge’s orders and were varied on appeal?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The earlier orders included joint custody with the wife having care and control, detailed access arrangements, child maintenance, a lump sum for the wife’s maintenance, and no division of assets. On appeal, the orders were varied, including an additional lump sum maintenance for the wife in instalments.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},639399,1792985899,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":14,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":41,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144},962093532863,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","TQ v TR and Another Appeal  \n[2009] SGCA 6  \nCase Number : CA 93/2007, 94/2007  \nDecision Date : 03 February 2009 Tribunal/Court : Court of Appeal  \nCoram : Chan Sek Keong CJ; Andrew P hang Boon Leong JA; V K Rajah JA  \nCounsel Name(s) : Foo Siew Fong and Loh Wern Sze Nicole ( Harry Elias Partnership) for the appellant in Civil Appeal No 93 of 2007 and the respondent in Civil Appeal No 94 of 2007; Quek Mong Hua, Tan Siew Kim and Y ip Luyang Elena ( Lee & Lee) for the respondent in Civil Appeal No 93 of 2007 and the appellant in Civil Appeal No 94 of 2007  \nParties : TQ — TR  \nConflict of Laws – Choice of law – Family – Domicile – Law governing validity of prenuptial agreements – Prenuptial agreement executed in Netherlands by foreigners which provided there was to be no community of property – Whether domicile of parties relevant in determining governing law for validity of prenuptial agreement – Which law governed validity of prenuptial agreement  \n– Whether clause in prenuptial agreement stipulating that marital property regime between parties to be governed by Dutch law could be construed as express choice of law clause in favour of Dutch law or clause supporting implied choice of Dutch law as governing law of agreement – Whether prenuptial agreement valid under Dutch law – Whether foreign prenuptial agreements which were valid by their proper law had to comply with general principles of Singapore common law of contract Family Law – Custody – Care and control – Maintenance – Child – Wife – Matrimonial assets  \n– Division – Prenuptial agreements – Types of marital agreements – Types of prenuptial agreements – Legal status of prenuptial agreements in Singapore – Prenuptial agreement executed in Netherlands by foreigners which provided there was to be no community of property – Whether prenuptial agreement was valid under Dutch law – What weight should be given to prenuptial agreement by court in exercising its power under s 112 Women 's Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed) for division of matrimonial assets – Whether prenuptial agreement should be given significant weight given that it was entered into by foreign nationals and governed by (as well as was valid according to) foreign law  \n[EDITORIAL NOTE: The details of this judgment have been changed to comply with the Children and Young Persons Act and/or the Women's Charter]  \n3 February 2009  \nAndrew Phang Boon Leong JA (delivering the grounds of decision of the court):  \n1 This was an appeal against ancillary orders made in a divorce petition. The husband (“the Husband”) is a Dutch citizen while the wife (“the Wife”) is a Swedish citizen. The couple met in the late 1980s in London, UK. At that time, the Husband was working in London as an associate with a major international bank, while the Wife was working with a travel agency in Sweden. She moved to London in late 1988 in order to live with the Husband.  \n2 The couple decided to get married and, to that end, a prenuptial agreement was executed on  \n26 August 1991 (“the Agreement”) . This agreement was prepared by a Dutch civil law notary in Wassenaar, the Netherlands, and stated, inter alia, that there was to be no community of property. The couple were married in the Netherlands on 13 September 1991, but went back to London  \nVersion No 0: 03 Feb 2009 (00:00 hrs)  \nimmediately after the wedding.  \n3 From 1991 to 1997, the couple lived in London. Three children were born during this time: ason (“the Son”) was born in 1992; followed by a daughter (“the First Daughter”) , born in 1995, who was born handicapped with a chromosome disorder and needs constant care and attention; finally, another daughter (“the Second Daughter”) was born in 1997 (collectively “the Children”) .  \n4 On 30 September 1997, the family moved to Singapore when the Husband obtained a job here . The Son was then five years old, the First Daughter two years old, and the Second Daughter two months old. While in Singapore, the marriage deteriorated. The Wife le","cbCaik0trFrCFwDG","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaik0trFrCFwDG","pdf",223857,"English","# Parties and background\n## Marriage and prenuptial agreement\n# Proceedings and ancillary orders\n## Custody, access, and maintenance\n# Issues on appeal\n## Choice of law and validity under Dutch law\n## Weight of foreign prenuptial agreement under s 112\n# Court of Appeal decision","[{\"question\":\"What was the prenuptial agreement and what property regime did it provide for?\",\"answer\":\"The prenuptial agreement executed in 1991 stated that there was to be no community of property.\"},{\"question\":\"Which key legal issues did the Court of Appeal address?\",\"answer\":\"The Court addressed governing law and validity of the prenuptial agreement, whether domicile mattered for the governing law determination, and what weight should be given to the foreign prenuptial agreement for dividing matrimonial assets under s 112 of the Women’s Charter.\"},{\"question\":\"What ancillary matters were decided in the earlier judge’s orders and were varied on appeal?\",\"answer\":\"The earlier orders included joint custody with the wife having care and control, detailed access arrangements, child maintenance, a lump sum for the wife’s maintenance, and no division of assets. On appeal, the orders were varied, including an additional lump sum maintenance for the wife in instalments.\"}]","TQ v TR - Case CA 93/2007, 94/2007 - Court of Appeal decision 03 February 2009 | PDF",1792703430,76]