PEMPETISYEN LIM ENN RUU YEING TEM SOON

PEMPETISYEN LIM ENN RUU YEING TEM SOON

The Respondent failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Petitioner intentionally and wholly prevented access under the consent order dated 7.10.2022; the evidence (police reports and WhatsApp messages) established a strained relationship and incidents of harassment by the Respondent that plausibly caused the child's refusal, and thus did not establish deliberate non‑compliance warranting committal.

Citation
NA-33-122-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner: YEING TEM SOON; Respondent: YEING TEM SOON
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 January 2025
Case Number
NA-33-122-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Committal (contempt) Application Arising From Divorce/access Order / Appeal Against Refusal of Committal Application
Outcome
Application for committal dismissed; appeal against refusal of committal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Child Custody and Access, Committal for Contempt, Burden of Proof, Admissibility and Weight of Police Reports, Enforcement of Access Orders
Source Language
Malay/English
Family Law Contempt of Court Civil Procedure Evidence Child Custody and Access Committal for Contempt Burden of Proof Admissibility and Weight of Police Reports +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

YEING TEM SOON

Petitioner

YEING TEM SOON

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Committal (contempt) Application Arising From Divorce/access Order / Appeal Against Refusal of Committal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Petitioner intentionally disobeyed the access terms of the consent order dated 7.10.2022
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent discharged the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt required for committal
  3. 3 What weight police reports and WhatsApp communications carry in committal proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondent failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Petitioner intentionally and wholly prevented access under the consent order dated 7.10.2022; the evidence (police reports and WhatsApp messages) established a strained relationship and incidents of harassment by the Respondent that plausibly caused the child's refusal, and thus did not establish deliberate non‑compliance warranting committal.

Court Disposition

Application for committal dismissed; appeal against refusal of committal dismissed.

Orders

  • Application at knd.26 for committal dismissed with costs in favour of the Petitioner.
  • Appeal by the Respondent against the refusal of the committal order dismissed with costs.