Kim (Tan Siew Kim) has more than 20 years’ experience as a family lawyer.
During her long career in family law, Kim has represented clients of different backgrounds in divorces, and has experience helping them through difficult periods. She specialises in all aspects of contentious family matters and has a wide range of litigation experience, having conducted proceedings regularly in the State Courts (including the Family and Juvenile Courts), the High Court of Singapore and the Court of Appeal.
Kim’s practice stands out for providing the personal touch in assisting clients through this difficult period of time. She personally guides her clients through each stage of the divorce process.
In addition to her practice, while at RHTLaw Taylor Wessing, Kim conducted private client seminars on family disputes for high net worth families. She has also advised local companies, major banks, MNCs and various statutory boards and liaised with counsel from other jurisdictions for both corporate and family matters.
Kim is regularly featured in local magazines and the press, notably for her views and comments on family matters.
Kim was head of the family law practice at Lee and Lee, and a senior family lawyer at RHTLaw Taylor Wessing. She is currently a consultant with Sterling Law Corporation.
Kim Tan has had more than 20 years of divorce experience in assisting clients, primarily professionals, expatriates, and high networth individuals, through this difficult period in their lives. Contentious divorce cases are her speciality, and her practice stands out for the highly-personal service extended to each and every client. Kim is well-versed in issues such as cross-border disputes over child custody and matrimonial assets. She personally guides her clients through each stage of the divorce process, making use of her vast experience handling contentious divorces.
Relevant reported cases:
VQB And VQC  SGHCF 5
Kim represented the Respondent (the husband) in both the District Court and Family Division of the High Court. The Appellant argued that she signed the Draft Consent Order under duress and claimed that the Respondent and her did not live separate and apart for three years, and finally, that the Respondent had agreed to withdraw the divorce proceedings and gave her the impression that they had been withdrawn. The Court stated that an Interim Judgment may be set aside before the Final Judgment is made, but once the Final Judgment is made, the marriage is at a permanent end. It cannot be reinstated although it may be renewed. Based on all the compelling evidence produced by the Respondent, the High Court declined to grant the Appellant the orders sought and dismissed the appeal with costs granted in favour of the Respondent.
BHN v BHO  SGHC 91
Kim Tan represented the husband in the division of matrimonial property where both spouses were gainfully employed and were married for over 20 years with two children; The husband received 60% of the matrimonial assets.
JQ v JR  SGDC 93
Kim Tan assisted her client, who was the father, in obtaining interim access to the child. The mother had made unilateral arrangements for the child without giving reasonable notice to the father, impeding the father’s access period. The Court held that the father was successful on his application for overnight access and the mother was ordered to attend a parenting workshop that she had to bear the costs for. Subsequently, Kim successfully obtained care and control for the father.
Lee Kok Yong v Lee Guek Hua (alias Li Yuehua)  SGHC 26
Kim Tan's client was the wife, whose husband had appealed to vary an order of the court, regarding the division of matrimonial assets and the payment of lump sum maintenance of $20,000. The High Court held that as the order of court for the division of the matrimonial property in the present case is not a continuing order, the question of a variation does not arise. As for the lump sum payment, the appellant was in no position to assert that the lump sum payment should be varied as he blatantly refused to make the payment. The High Court dismissed the husband’s appeals with costs.
TQ v TR  3 SLR(R) 719;  SGHC 106
This was the first case in Singapore recognising the validity of a prenuptial agreement made abroad. Kim Tan's client was a Dutch husband, who had made a pre-nuptial agreement with his Swedish wife in the Netherlands. They moved to Singapore where he found employment.The Court held that Singapore Courts should accord “significant weight” to the terms of a prenuptial agreement between foreign nationals that is governed by and valid according to the foreign law, unless its terms violate the public policy of Singapore.
Goh Ah Teck v Yeo Bee Luan  SGHC 92
Kim Tan's client was the wife, who had been awarded maintenance of $300 for herself and $1,000 to each of the two children. The husband appealed against the order on the grounds that the District Judge had over- estimated his income, the findings of the monthly expenses of the respondent was wrong and lastly, the respondent was given a higher standard of living than she had before the breakdown of marriage. The appeal was dismissed.
Lim Kok Sian Brandon v Ong Ai Geok  SGDC 248
Kim Tan represented the wife in a case that dealt with the principles governing the determination of the quantum of maintenance for a former wife. The wife was initially awarded a much lower sum of maintenance - monthly maintenance of $1,895 for four months and $895 for the next 31 months. She appealed against the decision of the District Court and the appeal was allowed. The Petitioner was ordered to pay the respondent maintenance at $3,500 per month for three years and thereafter at $2,500 per month. This was upheld by the Court of Appeal.
As part of her family practice, Kim assists her clients in drafting pre-nuptial agreements. Her experience in family law and divorce enables her to advise clients on the important issues of the pre-nuptial agreement based on their circumstances.
Relevant Reported Case:
TQ v TR  3 SLR(R) 719;  SGHC 106
This was the first case in Singapore recognising the validity of a prenuptial agreement made abroad. Kim Tan's client was a Dutch husband, who had made a pre-nuptial agreement with his Swedish wife in the Netherlands. They moved to Singapore where he found employment. The Court held that Singapore Courts should accord “significant weight” to the terms of a prenuptial agreement between foreign nationals that is governed by and valid according to the foreign law, unless its terms violate the public policy of Singapore.
Media & Publications
- Steps to take if you suspect your spouse is cheating – SingaporeLegalAdvice.com
- “In divorce cases, child representatives a double-edged sword, say experts” – Today
- “The most depressing part of family law” – The New Paper
- “Wronged men less likely to end marriage” – Straits Times
- “Would you snoop on your boyfriend’s phone while he’s asleep?” – Her World magazine