YER v YES
Key facts
| Court | Family Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Kow Keng Siong |
| Charges / claim | Family Procedure |
| Counsel | Alain A Johns Partnership, David Liew Law Practice, Alain Abraham Johns, David Liew Tuck Yin, Emira Bte Abdul Razakjr |
Source: [2026] SGFC 82, Family Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (5)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
YER v YES [2026] SGFC 82 was decided by District Judge Kow Keng Siong in the Family Court on 23 June 2026. The case concerned a 2012 consent order requiring the father to pay $650/month for his daughter's maintenance and 50% of her educational and medical expenses. The mother sought to enforce the order and to increase maintenance, and the father sought to reduce his contributions. The issues included how the consent order should be construed, whether the daughter's overseas medical course in Australia was a reasonable expense to charge to the father, the three-year time-bar for maintenance arrears, and whether voluntary payments above the ordered sum were enforceable. The court ordered the father to pay $2,589.83 as his share of proved medical expenses and dismissed the other claims and both variation applications.
[2026] SGFC 82 explained
YER v YES ([2026] SGFC 82) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Family Court on 23 June 2026. It is categorised under Family Procedure. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. 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 [2026] SGFC 82 about?
YER v YES ([2026] SGFC 82) is a Family Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Family Procedure – Judgments and orders – Construction of court orders – Applicable principles Family Law – Maintenance – Child – Construction of consent order – Clause requiring father to bear half of educational expenses – Whether father's express consent a precondition to liability – Whether reasonableness operates as a limit on substantive duty – Distinction between objective reasonableness and subjective consent Family Law – Maintenance – Child – Enforcement – Educational expenses – Factors relevant to whether educational expenses are reasonable to incur Family Law – Maintenance – Child – Enforcement – Time-bar – Three-year limitation period under s 121(3) Women's Charter 1961 (2020 Rev Ed) – Special circumstances – Factors relevant to whether special circumstances established Family Law – Maintenance – Child — Enforcement – Voluntary payments above court-ordered sum – Whether voluntary increases enforceable as part of maintenance order”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2026] SGFC 82 consider?
The judgment refers to Administration of Muslim Law Act (Cap 3), Family Justice Reform Act, Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122), and Interpretation Act (Cap 1), among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGFC 82 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2025] SGFC 119, [2023] SGHC(A) 23, and [2023] SGHCF 3. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
The Family Court heard three applications between a divorced mother (YER) and father (YES) arising from a 2012 consent order on their daughter's maintenance: the mother's enforcement application and her application to vary maintenance, and the father's application to reduce his contributions. The court found no default on general maintenance of $650/month, held the father was not liable for 50% of the daughter's Australian medical course, and held most of the medical expenses claim time-barred. It ordered the father to pay $2,589.83 for proved medical expenses and dismissed the remaining claims and both variation applications.
What was YER v YES [2026] SGFC 82 about?
It concerned a 2012 consent order on a daughter's maintenance. The mother sought enforcement and higher maintenance, and the father sought reductions. The Family Court addressed educational expenses for the daughter's Australian medical course, time-barred arrears and voluntary payments above the ordered $650/month.
What orders did the Family Court make in [2026] SGFC 82?
The court ordered the father to pay the mother $2,589.83 as his share of proved medical expenses, by 7 July 2026. It dismissed the mother's remaining enforcement claims, her variation application (OADV 443) and the father's variation application (SUM 2739).
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (25)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGFC 82)