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)

Enclosure 73 was dismissed as an abuse of process because the respondent no longer had ancillary reliefs in his answer after the cross-petition was struck out; he failed to satisfy Rule 61(2)/Form 13 preconditions and sought substantive relief beyond the narrow disclosure order permissible at that stage; the Settlement Agreement/Consent Judgment could not be treated as an enforceable property adjustment order pending separate civil proceedings challenging it.

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
9 October 2020
Case Number
PA-33-217-06/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Divorce Petition / Preliminary Hearing on Ancillary Relief Application (notice of Intention to Proceed)
Outcome
Enclosure 73 dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Disclosure Obligations, Abuse of Process, Property Adjustment Orders, Consent Judgment, Procedure Under Rule 61
Source Language
Malay/English
Family Law Civil Procedure Ancillary Relief Disclosure Obligations Abuse of Process Property Adjustment Orders Consent Judgment Procedure Under Rule 61

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

Chen Siew Lee

Petitioner

Tan Bak Lee

Respondent

Jasmine Yeoh Siow Ling

Co Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce Petition / Preliminary Hearing on Ancillary Relief Application (notice of Intention to Proceed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent could validly proceed under Rule 61 after his cross-petition was struck out
  2. 2 Whether enclosure 73 complied with Rule 61(2) read with Form 13 and Rule 56(1) prerequisites
  3. 3 Whether the Settlement Agreement/Consent Judgment amounts to a property adjustment order enforceable in the petition proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Enclosure 73 was dismissed as an abuse of process because the respondent no longer had ancillary reliefs in his answer after the cross-petition was struck out; he failed to satisfy Rule 61(2)/Form 13 preconditions and sought substantive relief beyond the narrow disclosure order permissible at that stage; the Settlement Agreement/Consent Judgment could not be treated as an enforceable property adjustment order pending separate civil proceedings challenging it.

Court Disposition

Enclosure 73 dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Enclosure 73 dismissed with costs