PEMPETISYEN XXXX XXXX

PEMPETISYEN XXXX XXXX

Application dismissed: petitioner failed to comply with Rule 63 by not providing full particulars of income and assets; on the merits he failed to prove a material change in circumstances sufficient to justify varying a consent order he had himself proposed; consent order must be upheld and variation refused; costs awarded to respondent.

Citation
WA-33-739-11/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner Husband: Foo Kwong Shiong; Petitioner Wife: Lee Chow Peng
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
13 February 2023
Case Number
WA-33-739-11/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Divorce Petition (variation of Maintenance) / Judgment on Application to Vary Decree Nisi (variation Application)
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Variation of Maintenance Order, Consent Orders, Full Financial Disclosure, Material Change in Circumstances, Committal/contempt Proceedings
Source Language
Malay/English
Family Law Matrimonial Law Civil Procedure Variation of Maintenance Order Consent Orders Full Financial Disclosure Material Change in Circumstances Committal/contempt Proceedings

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Foo Kwong Shiong

Petitioner Husband

Lee Chow Peng

Petitioner Wife

Procedural Posture

Divorce Petition (variation of Maintenance) / Judgment on Application to Vary Decree Nisi (variation Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether petitioner complied with Rule 63 (full particulars of property and income)
  2. 2 Whether petitioner proved a material change in circumstances under s96 Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976
  3. 3 Whether a consent order should be varied where the applicant proposed the original terms

Ratio Decidendi

Application dismissed: petitioner failed to comply with Rule 63 by not providing full particulars of income and assets; on the merits he failed to prove a material change in circumstances sufficient to justify varying a consent order he had himself proposed; consent order must be upheld and variation refused; costs awarded to respondent.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Costs awarded against Petitioner Husband