PEMPETISYEN YEE YEW CHUIN LEE BEE PENG

PEMPETISYEN YEE YEW CHUIN LEE BEE PENG

Preliminary objection dismissed; where documents themselves (not merely affidavits of particulars) are sought the court may order production under Order 24 r.10 ROC 2012 to fill gaps in the DMPR regime; the specific categories sought (pay‑slips, income tax assessments, bank statements within the court's jurisdiction, credit card statements, EPF statements and fixed deposit/unit trust/investment records) from 1.1.2020 to the date of the order are relevant, in the Petitioner’s possession or power and necessary to fairly determine the maintenance claim and prepare the trial bundle, and therefore production is ordered; documents relating to the specified properties (paras 6–8) and company...

Citation
PA-33-341-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner Husband: Yee Yew Chuin; Respondent Wife: Lee Bee Peng
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 September 2023
Case Number
PA-33-341-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Divorce Petition With Ancillary Relief / Discovery Application / Interlocutory — Decision on Enclosure 17 (application for Production Under O.24 R.10 ROC 2012)
Outcome
Enclosure 17 allowed in part; preliminary objection dismissed
Legal Topics
Maintenance, Disclosure of Documents, Ancillary Relief, Procedural Compliance With DMPR Vs ROC 2012, Jurisdictional Limits on Production
Source Language
Malay/English
Matrimonial Law Civil Procedure Evidence and Discovery Family Law Maintenance Disclosure of Documents Ancillary Relief Procedural Compliance With DMPR Vs ROC 2012 +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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yee Yew Chuin

Petitioner Husband

Lee Bee Peng

Respondent Wife

Procedural Posture

Divorce Petition With Ancillary Relief / Discovery Application / Interlocutory — Decision on Enclosure 17 (application for Production Under O.24 R.10 ROC 2012)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent’s application for production should have been brought under DPMR Form 11 or by discovery under Order 24 r.10 ROC 2012
  2. 2 Whether the documents sought are relevant and in the Petitioner’s possession, custody or power
  3. 3 Appropriate temporal scope for production

Ratio Decidendi

Preliminary objection dismissed; where documents themselves (not merely affidavits of particulars) are sought the court may order production under Order 24 r.10 ROC 2012 to fill gaps in the DMPR regime; the specific categories sought (pay‑slips, income tax assessments, bank statements within the court's jurisdiction, credit card statements, EPF statements and fixed deposit/unit trust/investment records) from 1.1.2020 to the date of the order are relevant, in the Petitioner’s possession or power and necessary to fairly determine the maintenance claim and prepare the trial bundle, and therefore production is ordered; documents relating to the specified properties (paras 6–8) and company...

Court Disposition

Enclosure 17 allowed in part; preliminary objection dismissed

Orders

  • Produce pay‑slips and income tax assessments of Petitioner Husband from 1.1.2020 to date of order for inspection and copying
  • Produce all credit card statements of Petitioner Husband from 1.1.2020 to date of order for inspection and copying