UKM v AG,  SGHCF 18: Shaun was counsel in a novel case involving the adoption by a homosexual man of his biological child. He represented the father in first instance and on appeal, and succeeded on appeal to a specially constituted 3-man bench of the High Court. The adoption order was eventually made and the father was allowed to adopt his own son.
VCX v VCY,  SGFC 130: Shaun represented a homosexual man applying for joint custody and shared care and control of their son.
VET v VEU,  SGHCF 4: Shaun represented a homosexual man applying for his partner to be appointed as a guardian of his two children. This case developed the law pertaining to voluntary delegation of responsibility by a parent to a non-parent under the law of guardianship, and is now a leading precedent on these issues.
Relocation with children
UXH v UXI,  SGHCF 24: Shaun successfully resisted an application by a mother for leave to relocate with the children of the marriage to the United Kingdom, both at first instance and on appeal. The Court in this case provided guidance as to the factors which it will consider in determining such applications.
Leave to return to UK with children
UXT v UXU,  SGFC 79: Shaun represented a mother seeking leave to return home to the United Kingdom with the children of the marriage. Although the first instance Court denied the application, Shaun succeeded on appeal to the High Court. The decision of the High Court is unreported.
Leave to relocate to UK with child
UYJ v UYK,  SGHCF 9: Shaun was part of a team appointed as instructed counsel for the father, to appeal the family court's decision allowing the mother leave to relocate to the UK with the parties' child. This case has become a leading precedent for how the Court balances children's issues with other considerations in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic.
TYU v TYV  SGHCF 8: Shaun was counsel for the father in a case in which the father's shares in a group of companies valued at over S$40 million constituted over 80% of the pool of matrimonial assets. The primary issue in this case was how the father would meet his obligation to divide the matrimonial assets given that his shares, which formed the bulk of the assets to be divided, were illiquid.
TZG v TZH  SGHCF 9: Shaun was counsel and responsible for drafting all legal documents in a case where a dental practice jointly owned by the parties was one of the main matrimonial assets. Complexity arose because the dental practice, whilst valued at over S$2 million, could not realistically be sold at the same price. Shaun succeeded in securing over half the realised value in the dental practice for the Plaintiff.