Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Judicial interview of child

  • 23 Apr 2024

    PEMPETISYEN 1. ) S I N G 2. ) L I N G

    Citation
    WA-33JP-121-01/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-33JP-121-01/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The wife's application was dismissed because she failed to demonstrate a new material change in circumstances (ADHD and the photograph incident were known or not shown to be materially new or harmful) and she lacked evidence of capacity to manage the child; the husband's cross-application was partially allowed because entrenched parental hostility and the wife's disruptive conduct to the child's routine constituted a material change making joint custody unworkable, warranting sole custody to the husband with structured access for the mother to protect the child's welfare.

  • 25 Mar 2024

    N A H H A H

    Citation
    WA-24F-141-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-24F-141-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The statutory presumption in s88(3) favouring placement of a child of tender years with her mother was not rebutted because psychiatric and evaluation reports did not establish that the mother was unfit; the child's welfare as paramount consideration required placement of 4‑year‑old LIN with her mother while older siblings remain with the father given their expressed wishes and significant age gap; joint custody was inappropriate due to acrimony; accordingly sole custody of LIN awarded to Plaintiff and sole custody of VIN and HIN awarded to Defendant with access provisions and no maintenance…

  • 22 Jan 2024

    Angel Lim Ng Mong Wei

    Citation
    WA-24F-280-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-24F-280-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The Variation Application by MON was dismissed because MON failed to prove a material change in circumstances on the balance of probabilities and the welfare of the child did not require change; GEL's custody application succeeded because GEL had been the primary carer and financial provider and placement with GEL best served the child's welfare; procedural objections to MON's variation were rejected because the Administratrix submitted to the court's jurisdiction and statutory family law powers permit variation applications.

  • 22 Jan 2024

    Lim Cheng Hoe Ng Mong Wei

    Citation
    WA-24F-21-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-24F-21-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    MIL's death alone did not amount to a material change in circumstances under s96; MON failed to prove material change or to demonstrate ability to provide a stable, supportive environment or financial maintenance; GEL had been the primary carer and financial provider since MIL's death and acted in the child's best interests; therefore the Variation Application was dismissed and GEL's custody/guardianship application was allowed consistent with the child's welfare being paramount.