Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Sham Marriages, Ancillary Powers, And Moral Discourse: Toh Seok Kheng V. Huang Huiqun; Adp V. Adq, Siyuan Chen
Sham Marriages, Ancillary Powers, And Moral Discourse: Toh Seok Kheng V. Huang Huiqun; Adp V. Adq, Siyuan Chen
Siyuan CHEN
Is marriage an institution (of public morality) or a contract (of private ordering)? In Toh Seok Kheng, the High Court concluded that it was unable to declare a “sham marriage” void just because the motives behind the marriage seemed improper. In ADP, the High Court held that since a void marriage meant there was no marriage to begin with, the “wife” was not entitled to maintenance, and there could not have been any “matrimonial assets” to be divided, unless she had a strong “moral” claim. This piece considers how the aforementioned moral-contractual dichotomy emerges in these cases.
The Fundamental Question When Applying The Welfare Principle: "Who Will Be The Better Parent Or Guardian"?, Siyuan Chen
The Fundamental Question When Applying The Welfare Principle: "Who Will Be The Better Parent Or Guardian"?, Siyuan Chen
Siyuan CHEN
The welfare principle – that is, when making a custody-related decision, the best interests of the child form the first and paramount consideration – is probably one of the cardinal principles of family law in many common law jurisdictions. While the welfare principle is generally considered a wide concept with no exhaustive definition or list of factors, it is submitted that there is an important question – sometimes neglected or misunderstood – that should actually feature most prominently when applying the welfare principle, particularly when joint or no order custody orders seem impossible. The question is simply that of “who …