PEMPETISYEN CHEW VEE LYN DAVID MAURICIO VELEZ HERNANDEZ

PEMPETISYEN CHEW VEE LYN DAVID MAURICIO VELEZ HERNANDEZ

The court had jurisdiction to entertain a s96 variation application but the Respondent's application was an abuse of process because it sought to relitigate issues already decided at the full hearing which he failed to attend; the Respondent failed to prove misrepresentation, mistake of fact, or a material change in circumstances to justify variation, therefore the application is dismissed with costs.

Citation
WA-33-404-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner: Chew Vee Lyn; Respondent: David Mauricio Velez Hernandez
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 October 2023
Case Number
WA-33-404-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Divorce Petition / Post Decree Variation Application (dismissed)
Outcome
Application dismissed; costs awarded to Petitioner; original Court Order of 12 January 2023 upheld
Legal Topics
Variation of Orders Under S96, Jurisdiction to Entertain Ancillary Relief, Abuse of Process, Trial in Absentia, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Family Law Matrimonial Law Child Custody Child Maintenance Civil Procedure Variation of Orders Under S96 Jurisdiction to Entertain Ancillary Relief Abuse of Process +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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chew Vee Lyn

Petitioner

David Mauricio Velez Hernandez

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce Petition / Post Decree Variation Application (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether court had jurisdiction to hear a variation application under s96 when respondent alleged non-domicile
  2. 2 Whether the variation application constituted an abuse of process/attempt to relitigate issues decided at trial in absentia
  3. 3 Whether respondent established misrepresentation or mistake of fact or material change in circumstances to justify variation under s96

Ratio Decidendi

The court had jurisdiction to entertain a s96 variation application but the Respondent's application was an abuse of process because it sought to relitigate issues already decided at the full hearing which he failed to attend; the Respondent failed to prove misrepresentation, mistake of fact, or a material change in circumstances to justify variation, therefore the application is dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; costs awarded to Petitioner; original Court Order of 12 January 2023 upheld

Orders

  • This Application is dismissed.
  • Costs of this Application to the Petitioner (amount not specified in judgment).