Yeo Wai Tat (No K/P: 820921-05-5609) Ho Wan Wei (P) (No. K/P: 850424-12-5298)

Page 1 of 9 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI JOHOR BAHRU DALAM NEGERI JOHOR DARUL TAKZIM, MALAYSIA PETISYEN PERCERAIAN NO: JA-33-116-03/2020 ANTARA YEO WAI TAT (No. K/P: 820921-05-5609) ... PEMPETISYEN DAN HO WAN WEI (P) (No. K/P: 850424-12-5298) .». RESPONDEN (YA. DATO’ FREDRICK INDRAN X.A. NICHOLAS) Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya At Johor Bahru DATE: 21 OKTOBER 2020 MTPB(S2) JA-33 -116 -03/2020/WWT/HWW/coa-matrimonial-tramsfor-kchg/dinnianed/fir Page 2 of 9 GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT (Enclosure 13) The Application [1] The matter before the Court is a Notice of Application by the Respondent for this Petition for Divorce to be dismissed/struck out. [2] Needless to say, the Petitioner vehemently opposes the same. The Matrix [3] The Petitioner and the Respondent are both domiciled in Malaysia and had their marriage registered at Kuala Lumpur on 28.11.2009. There are two minor children to the marriage aged 10 and 7, both of whom are daughters. [4] The Petition [Encl. 1 ~ of this action] was filed at this Court’s Registry on 11.3.2020. [5] |The Respondent answered the said Petition on 30.6.2020. MTJB(S2)-JA -33 -116 -03/2020/YWT/HWW/coa- matrimonial-tramser-kchg/dimined/filr Page 3 of 9 [6] The Petitioner then replied to the Respondent's answer on 14.7.2020. [7] The Respondent filed this application (Encl. 13) on that same date, i.e. 14.7.2020. [8] The Respondent's affidavit in support of the application, affirmed on 25.6.2020, is marked as Encl. 14. [9] The Petitioner's affidavit in opposition, affirmed on 3.8.2020, is marked as Encl. 15. [10] The Respondent’s affidavit in reply thereto, affirmed on 19.8.2020 is marked as Encl. 16. The Respondent’s contentions [11] a) That this Court at Johor Baharu had no jurisdiction to hear this dispute; b) That this Court was not the appropriate forum to hear the matter; MTJB(S2) JA-33-116 -03/2020/WT/HWW/con-matrimonial-tramufer-kchg/ dimmed flr Page 4 of 9 c) That this Petition is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; and/or may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the dispute between the parties; and/or d) This Petition is an abuse of the process of the Court. [12] It was the Respondent’s stand that the appropriate forum conferred with jurisdiction was the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak at Kuching for the following reasons: a) That substantial facts of the case arose in Kuching after the Respondent returned there in February, 2019; b) Kuching High Court is the forum conveniens; c) The two minor children are currently living in Kuching with the respondent. [13] The Respondent has taken steps to file her own Divorce Petition at the Kuching High Court on 25.6.2020 designated Divorce Petition No: KCH-33-78/6-2020. MTJB(S2) JA -33 -116 -03/2020/YWT/HWW/coa-matrimonial-tramsfer-kchg/dimnised/fifr Page 5 of 9 [14] At the hearing of this application on 14.9.2020, Learned Counsel for the Respondent took the Court through her written submissions (Encl. 17) and authorities; which raised four main arguments: i) The question of “local jurisdiction’; ii) forum conveniens; iii) Order 18, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012; and iv) That the instant application served the interest of justice. [15] Though perhaps curious in its, dare | say it, sophistry; | shall refrain from recapitulating or elaborating on those arguments here. Suffice to say that a perusal of all the arguments raised could not pass muster in support of this application; and was in point of fact, | am sorry to say, rather a squander of juridical time. Hence, my reluctance to regurgitate it here. ——EE———E——————————————————————————————————————————E———————— MTJB(S2)-JA-33 -116 -03/2020/YWT/HWW/coa-matrimonial-transfer-kchg/ diamined/fi/r Page 6 of 9 The Petitioner’s Response [16] The Petitioner's written submission was marked as Encl. 20. This is what Learned Counsel had to say: i) The Respondent had adopted a defective mode to bring this application before this Court ~ Rule 91 of the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980 mandates that “... every application in matrimonial proceedings, shall if the proceedings are pending in the High Court, be made by summons we (emphasis added) In this case, it was made by way of a ‘Notice of Application’. That, says learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is sufficient to have this application dismissed with costs; li) | That this Court does indeed have the jurisdiction to hear this Petition for Divorce [Rule 10 (1) of the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980 and Sections 23 & 24 of The Courts of Judicature Act 1964 refers]. iii) That despite filing her own Divorce Petition at the Kuching High Court on 25.6.2020; the Respondent filed her MTJB (S2) JA -33 -116-03/2020/YWT/HWW/coa- matrimonial-tranafer-kchg/dismissed/filr Page 7 of 9 Memorandum of Appearance on 5.6.2020 and answered the instant Petition at Johor Bahru High Court on 30.6.2020; thus subjecting herself to the jurisdiction of this Court. Surely, this would be a clear indication that this application was merely an afterthought [The case of NEWACRES Sdn. Bhd. v. SRI ALAM Sdn. Bhd. [1991] 3 MLJ 474 refers]. iv) The last place of residence of both the parties was in Johor Bahru; which made this Court the actual forum conveniens. v) That on the facts, Order 18, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 does not and indeed could not have any application in this Divorce Proceedings. The Decision (17] This Court, could not but observe that this appeared to be a frivolous attempt by the Respondent to ‘move’ proceedings to Kuching for her own convenience; and is most likely as a result of an afterthought. Having subjected herself to the jurisdiction of this Court, without reservation, on 5.6.2020; and then again on 30.6.2020 (see eel MTJB(S2) JA -33 -116 -03/2020/YWT/HWW/coa-matrimontal-tramsfer-kchg/dismiaed/fir Page 8 of 9 above), she is thus obliged to see it through to the end, at this forum. This Court is confident that it is capable, competent and qualified to serve the ends of justice for both parties in this case; and that the Respondent need have no untoward apprehensions on that score. [18] Having reached that conclusion, it was thus ordered by this Court, on 14.9.2020, that Encl. 13 be duly dismissed; with costs in the sum of RM2,000.00 awarded against the Respondent. (YA Dato’ Fredrick Indran X.A. Nicholas) Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya at Johor Bahru EEE MTJB(S2)-JA-33 -116 -03/2020/YWT/HWW/coa- matrimonial-tramufer-kchg/dismisned/ fir Page 9 of 9 COUNSEL For Petitioner/Husband: Mr. Y C Wong Messrs. Han & Partners Advocates & Solicitors 10-13, Austin 18, Jalan Austin Perdana 3 Taman Austin Perdana 81100 Johor Bahru Johor Darul Takzim (Ref: WYC/J/1311/20) For Respondent/Wife: Miss Tan Ring Huey, Jessline Messrs. Jess Tan Law Chambers Advocates & Solicitors No. 18-01, Jalan Bestari 5/2 Taman Nusa Bestari 81300 Skudai Johor Darul Takzim (Ref: JTLC/Misc/Div-Uni(W)/HoWW/0620/rs) a MTJB(S2)-JA-33-116-03/2020/YWT/HWW/coa- matrimonial-transfer -kchg/diminsedffilr