PEMPETISYEN Tan Bee Geok 1. ) Thai Kim Sim 2. ) Tan Seah Lee PIHAK YANG DINAMAKAN Lin Woon Fui

PEMPETISYEN Tan Bee Geok 1. ) Thai Kim Sim 2. ) Tan Seah Lee PIHAK YANG DINAMAKAN Lin Woon Fui

Paragraph (b) of the Court Order was clear and required full disclosure of assets as at the effective date of the order (10 January 2024); monies in bank accounts and EPF are assets and required disclosure of balances and accounts; the First Respondent wilfully refused to comply and thereby committed contempt of court, justifying imposition of fines and costs with conditional imprisonment for non-payment or continued non-compliance.

Citation
WA-33-238-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner: Tan Bee Geok; First Respondent: Thai Kim Sim; Second Respondent: Tan Seah Lee; Party Cited: Lin Woon Fui
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 February 2025
Case Number
WA-33-238-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Judicial Separation Petition With Ancillary Relief and Committal for Contempt / Judgment on Contempt Application (order 52 Application)
Outcome
Application allowed; contempt established against the First Respondent.
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Assets, EPF as Matrimonial Asset, Interpretation of Court Orders, Committal Proceedings, Injunctions Under S102 Lr(md)a
Source Language
Malay/English
Family Law Contempt of Court Civil Procedure Matrimonial Property Law Enforcement of Court Orders Disclosure of Assets EPF as Matrimonial Asset Interpretation of Court Orders +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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tan Bee Geok

Petitioner

Thai Kim Sim

First Respondent

Tan Seah Lee

Second Respondent

Lin Woon Fui

Party Cited

Procedural Posture

Judicial Separation Petition With Ancillary Relief and Committal for Contempt / Judgment on Contempt Application (order 52 Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph (b) of the Court Order was vague or ambiguous
  2. 2 Whether disclosure of bank account balances was required by the Court Order
  3. 3 Whether Employees Provident Fund (EPF) constituted an asset required to be disclosed

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph (b) of the Court Order was clear and required full disclosure of assets as at the effective date of the order (10 January 2024); monies in bank accounts and EPF are assets and required disclosure of balances and accounts; the First Respondent wilfully refused to comply and thereby committed contempt of court, justifying imposition of fines and costs with conditional imprisonment for non-payment or continued non-compliance.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; contempt established against the First Respondent.

Orders

  • Fine of MYR20,000 for each of three categories of non-compliance (total fine MYR60,000)
  • Costs of MYR30,000, subject to allocatur