LAIN-LAIN 1. ) CHEW VEE LYN ... PETITIONER 2. ) DAVID MAURICIOUS VELEZ HERNANDEZ

LAIN-LAIN 1. ) CHEW VEE LYN ... PETITIONER 2. ) DAVID MAURICIOUS VELEZ HERNANDEZ

Respondent failed to plead and prove a domicile of choice in Malaysia as required by Form 2 and relevant authorities; absence of proved domicile meant the court lacked jurisdiction under LRA s48(1)(c); procedural failures on committal service did not validate the cross-petition; accordingly the cross-petition was defective, abusive of process and struck out.

Citation
WA-33-404-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner Wife: Chew Vee Lyn; Respondent Husband: David Mauricios Velez Hernandez
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 July 2020
Case Number
WA-33-404-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Divorce / Interlocutory Applications (committal Leave and Striking Out) — Judgment
Outcome
Preliminary objection dismissed; Petitioner Wife's striking-out application allowed; Respondent's cross-petition struck out; costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Domicile, Jurisdiction to Hear Divorce, Form Requirements for Petitions, Striking Out of Pleadings, Committal for Contempt, Service Requirements
Source Language
Malay/English
Family Law Matrimonial Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Contempt of Court Private International Law (domicile) Domicile Jurisdiction to Hear Divorce +4 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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chew Vee Lyn

Petitioner Wife

David Mauricios Velez Hernandez

Respondent Husband

Procedural Posture

Divorce / Interlocutory Applications (committal Leave and Striking Out) — Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent complied with contempt procedural requirements (Order 52) before committal leave
  2. 2 Whether respondent pleaded and proved domicile of choice in Malaysia
  3. 3 Whether court has jurisdiction under LRA s48(1)(c) when domicile not in Malaysia

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent failed to plead and prove a domicile of choice in Malaysia as required by Form 2 and relevant authorities; absence of proved domicile meant the court lacked jurisdiction under LRA s48(1)(c); procedural failures on committal service did not validate the cross-petition; accordingly the cross-petition was defective, abusive of process and struck out.

Court Disposition

Preliminary objection dismissed; Petitioner Wife's striking-out application allowed; Respondent's cross-petition struck out; costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection dismissed
  • Petitioner Wife's application in Enclosure 11 allowed