PEMPETISYEN L E N (F) 1. ) P E N 2. ) Y E N

PEMPETISYEN L E N (F) 1. ) P E N 2. ) Y E N

The Proposed Intervener was permitted to be joined because prima facie evidence indicated the Child’s proprietary and pecuniary interests in the TR Property that would be directly affected by the matrimonial proceedings, the Respondent’s failure to reply amounted to an admission supporting that prima facie case and his refusal to undergo DNA testing justified an adverse inference; intervention under procedural rules was therefore proper to protect the Child’s rights without pre-judging substantive trust issues.

Citation
WA-33-419-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner: LEN; Respondent: PEN; Co Respondent: YEN; Proposed Intervener: MEN
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 March 2025
Case Number
WA-33-419-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Judicial Separation Petition / Interlocutory Application to Intervene (next Friend Application)
Outcome
Application by Proposed Intervener to be made a party (joined) as next friend of the Child allowed
Legal Topics
Intervention, Next Friend, Parens Patriae, Paternity/dna Testing, Constructive/resulting Trust, Consent Order, Proprietary Rights, Admission by Silence
Source Language
Malay/English
Family Law Matrimonial Law Trust and Property Law Civil Procedure Child Law Intervention Next Friend Parens Patriae +5 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LEN

Petitioner

PEN

Respondent

YEN

Co Respondent

MEN

Proposed Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Separation Petition / Interlocutory Application to Intervene (next Friend Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Proposed Intervener (as next friend for the Child) has sufficient proprietary or pecuniary interest to be joined in the matrimonial proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the Child is the biological son of the Respondent and whether that affects the Child's proprietary claim to the TR Property
  3. 3 Whether intervention is permitted under applicable procedural rules without determining substantive trust merits

Ratio Decidendi

The Proposed Intervener was permitted to be joined because prima facie evidence indicated the Child’s proprietary and pecuniary interests in the TR Property that would be directly affected by the matrimonial proceedings, the Respondent’s failure to reply amounted to an admission supporting that prima facie case and his refusal to undergo DNA testing justified an adverse inference; intervention under procedural rules was therefore proper to protect the Child’s rights without pre-judging substantive trust issues.

Court Disposition

Application by Proposed Intervener to be made a party (joined) as next friend of the Child allowed

Orders

  • Application in enclosure 18 by Proposed Intervener to be joined as party in these proceedings as next friend of the Child is allowed
  • Costs awarded to the Proposed Intervener