PEMPETISYEN Slsl 1. ) Tkh 2. ) Llk

PEMPETISYEN Slsl 1. ) Tkh 2. ) Llk

Paragraph 3 of the 2.4.2019 Consent Order is ambiguous and lacks a specific timeframe; because committal is penal and requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of a deliberate wilful breach, the petitioner failed to discharge the burden and the committal application (and related appeal) is dismissed.

Citation
BA-33-915-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner: Sharon Low Su Lin; Respondent: Tan Kim Her; Respondent (co Respondent): Low Ley Keng
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
1 November 2023
Case Number
BA-33-915-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Divorce – Committal for Contempt of Consent Order / Appeal (decision on Committal Application)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; committal application dismissed; no order as to costs
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Consent Orders, Committal Proceedings for Contempt, Interpretation of Consent Orders, EPF Withdrawals and Restitution
Source Language
Malay/English
Family Law Contempt of Court Civil Procedure International Human Rights (cedaw/crc) Enforcement of Consent Orders Committal Proceedings for Contempt Interpretation of Consent Orders EPF Withdrawals and Restitution

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sharon Low Su Lin

Petitioner

Tan Kim Her

Respondent

Low Ley Keng

Respondent (co Respondent)

Procedural Posture

Divorce – Committal for Contempt of Consent Order / Appeal (decision on Committal Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether withdrawal from EPF violated Paragraph 3 of the 2.4.2019 Consent Order
  2. 2 Whether Paragraph 3 of the Consent Order is clear and unambiguous
  3. 3 Whether the petitioner proved wilful contempt beyond reasonable doubt

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 3 of the 2.4.2019 Consent Order is ambiguous and lacks a specific timeframe; because committal is penal and requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of a deliberate wilful breach, the petitioner failed to discharge the burden and the committal application (and related appeal) is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; committal application dismissed; no order as to costs

Orders

  • Committal application dismissed
  • Appeal dismissed