R O S M O S

R O S M O S

The application to cross-examine was dismissed because it was filed with unjustified delay and the Plaintiff had adduced sufficient contemporaneous documentary evidence on key issues such that cross-examination was unnecessary; the Defendant failed to show that cross-examination was required to resolve material disputes and failed to discharge the burden of proof for his allegations, therefore the court exercised its discretion to refuse leave.

Citation
WA-24F-200-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff Wife: ROS; Defendant Husband: MOS
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
2 December 2024
Case Number
WA-24F-200-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (custody) / Interlocutory Application to Cross Examine Deponent (dismissed)
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Custody, Guardianship, Cross Examination of Affidavit Deponent, Affidavit Evidence, Delay, Best Interests of the Child
Source Language
Malay/English
Family Law Child Welfare Civil Procedure Custody Guardianship Cross Examination of Affidavit Deponent Affidavit Evidence Delay +1 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ROS

Plaintiff Wife

MOS

Defendant Husband

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (custody) / Interlocutory Application to Cross Examine Deponent (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to cross-examine the Plaintiff on her affidavits
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant's application was filed with undue delay
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff adduced sufficient contemporaneous documentary evidence to dispose of the custody application without oral testimony

Ratio Decidendi

The application to cross-examine was dismissed because it was filed with unjustified delay and the Plaintiff had adduced sufficient contemporaneous documentary evidence on key issues such that cross-examination was unnecessary; the Defendant failed to show that cross-examination was required to resolve material disputes and failed to discharge the burden of proof for his allegations, therefore the court exercised its discretion to refuse leave.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs