Chen Siew Lee (NRIC No. 520102-07-5118) 1. ) Tan Bak Lee (NRIC No. 491127-07-5261) 2. ) Jasmine Yeoh Siow Ling (NRIC No. 691023-07-5052)

Chen Siew Lee (NRIC No. 520102-07-5118) 1. ) Tan Bak Lee (NRIC No. 491127-07-5261) 2. ) Jasmine Yeoh Siow Ling (NRIC No. 691023-07-5052)

The petitioner satisfied the statutory prerequisites of Rule 61(2): ancillary reliefs were claimed, Form 13 notice was served, and the respondent and co-respondent failed to file affidavits disclosing full particulars of property and income. The court therefore had jurisdiction and discretion to order them to file the required affidavits. Arguments based on estoppel, res judicata or abuse of process were premature and irrelevant at the disclosure stage; the Court of Appeal order stayed related civil suits pending the divorce, removing any basis to consolidate or advance those suits first.

Citation
PA-33-217-06/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner: Chen Siew Lee; Respondent: Tan Bak Lee; Co Respondent: Jasmine Yeoh Siow Ling
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 May 2020
Case Number
PA-33-217-06/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Divorce (ancillary Relief) / Interlocutory Disclosure Application Under Rule 61
Outcome
Enclosure 53 allowed; respondent and co-respondent ordered to file affidavits disclosing full particulars of their property and income; costs awarded to petitioner
Legal Topics
Disclosure Under Rule 61, Ancillary Relief, Maintenance, Abuse of Process, Res Judicata, Stay and Consolidation
Source Language
Malay/English
Family Law Matrimonial Property Civil Procedure Disclosure Under Rule 61 Ancillary Relief Maintenance Abuse of Process Res Judicata +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chen Siew Lee

Petitioner

Tan Bak Lee

Respondent

Jasmine Yeoh Siow Ling

Co Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce (ancillary Relief) / Interlocutory Disclosure Application Under Rule 61

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent and co-respondent complied with mandatory duty under Rule 61(2) to file affidavits disclosing full particulars of property and income
  2. 2 Whether the court should order disclosure by respondent and co-respondent
  3. 3 Whether estoppel/res judicata or abuse of process preclude the disclosure application

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner satisfied the statutory prerequisites of Rule 61(2): ancillary reliefs were claimed, Form 13 notice was served, and the respondent and co-respondent failed to file affidavits disclosing full particulars of property and income. The court therefore had jurisdiction and discretion to order them to file the required affidavits. Arguments based on estoppel, res judicata or abuse of process were premature and irrelevant at the disclosure stage; the Court of Appeal order stayed related civil suits pending the divorce, removing any basis to consolidate or advance those suits first.

Court Disposition

Enclosure 53 allowed; respondent and co-respondent ordered to file affidavits disclosing full particulars of their property and income; costs awarded to petitioner

Orders

  • Respondent and co-respondent to file affidavits containing full particulars of their property and income within 14 days from the order