Lee Hun Chiang (No. KP: 790311-07-5421) Yeoh Chern Chi (P) (No. KP: 830925-07-5016)

Lee Hun Chiang (No. KP: 790311-07-5421) Yeoh Chern Chi (P) (No. KP: 830925-07-5016)

Application dismissed because PH failed to prove a material change in circumstances for custody or maintenance: the short period children stayed with PH was a consequence of PH ceasing maintenance (not a change warranting custody variation), PH failed to make full and frank disclosure of his finances as required by rule and thus did not discharge evidential burden under sections 83 and 96 LRA; therefore 2017 order remains unchanged.

Citation
PA-33JP-808-12/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner Husband: Lee Hun Chiang (No. KP: 790311-07-5421); Petitioner Wife: Yeoh Chern Chi (No. KP: 830925-07-5016)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 June 2021
Case Number
PA-33JP-808-12/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Divorce (joint Petition) With Application to Vary Final Custody and Maintenance Orders / Summons in Chambers to Vary Final 2017 Order (application Heard and Dismissed)
Outcome
Summons in chambers dated 17.6.2020 dismissed
Legal Topics
Custody Variation, Maintenance Variation, Variation Under Section 96 LRA, Variation Under Section 83 LRA, Disclosure of Financial Information in Variation Applications, Treatment of Conflicting Affidavits
Source Language
Malay/English
Family Law Child Welfare Maintenance Civil Procedure Custody Variation Maintenance Variation Variation Under Section 96 LRA Variation Under Section 83 LRA +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Hun Chiang (No. KP: 790311-07-5421)

Petitioner Husband

Yeoh Chern Chi (No. KP: 830925-07-5016)

Petitioner Wife

Procedural Posture

Divorce (joint Petition) With Application to Vary Final Custody and Maintenance Orders / Summons in Chambers to Vary Final 2017 Order (application Heard and Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there has been a material change in circumstances to justify varying custody under section 96 LRA
  2. 2 Whether there has been a material change in circumstances to justify varying maintenance under section 83 LRA
  3. 3 Whether the applicant disclosed full financial particulars as required by Rule 63(1) of the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980

Ratio Decidendi

Application dismissed because PH failed to prove a material change in circumstances for custody or maintenance: the short period children stayed with PH was a consequence of PH ceasing maintenance (not a change warranting custody variation), PH failed to make full and frank disclosure of his finances as required by rule and thus did not discharge evidential burden under sections 83 and 96 LRA; therefore 2017 order remains unchanged.

Court Disposition

Summons in chambers dated 17.6.2020 dismissed

Orders

  • Summons in chambers dated 17.6.2020 (enclosure 16) dismissed
  • No variation to the 2017 consent order relating to custody and maintenance; 2017 order remains in force