Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Matrimonial property

  • 15 Apr 2025

    PEMPETISYEN GONASWARI A/P THEYAGASON RAJAN A/L KRISHNAN

    Citation
    JA-33-413-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    JA-33-413-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The petition was allowed because the Appellant failed to comply with peremptory court directions to file an Answer by the court‑imposed deadline, the default attracted the sanction permitted by Order 34 ROC and related authorities, no cogent explanation was offered, and the proper remedy for challenging the order was an application to set aside rather than an out‑of‑time appeal; the Appellant's solicitor's failures compounded the default and justified the order.

  • 30 Jan 2024

    PEMPETISYEN KENG TIAM LENG CHEONG SUH CHING

    Citation
    JA-33-404-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    JA-33-404-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The amendment application was dismissed because the proposed amendments would change the substance and character of the original defence by introducing new causes of action after close of pleadings and disclosure, the delay (approximately 1 year 7 months) was inordinate and not satisfactorily explained, and the amendment amounted to a tactical fishing expedition causing prejudice not remedied by costs; the preliminary procedural objection was dismissed as the defect was merely technical and cured by Order 1A r 2 ROC 2012.

  • 7 Jun 2022

    CHONG POH CHEE THAI LOON SENG

    Citation
    AA-A52NCvC-105-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    AA-A52NCvC-105-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    The court allowed the plaintiff's striking-out application: the defendant's counterclaim was matrimonial in character and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court; the counterclaim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action in material respects (vague, lacking particulars as to alleged fraud) and amounted to an abuse of process/frivolous conduct; affidavit evidence was admissible to support grounds (b),(c) and (d); consequently the counterclaim was struck out and costs awarded to the plaintiff.

  • 17 May 2022

    PEMPETISYEN P K R K D S

    Citation
    WA-33-627-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-33-627-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The parties had lived apart for more than two years (approximately five years); the petitioner left voluntarily as a result of marital problems and respondent failed to rebut the prima facie inference of irretrievable breakdown under s54(1)(d); balancing equities, the court concluded it was just and reasonable to dissolve the marriage and ordered transfer of the long‑used mobile number to the petitioner.

  • 16 Dec 2020

    1. G. NAGARAJAN A/L GANESAN 2. MALATI A/P SUBRAMANIAM SUTHAKARI A/P RENU

    Citation
    JB-32NCVC-182-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    JB-32NCVC-182-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Section 76 relief is confined to the time of granting a decree of divorce or judicial separation; the respondent applied years after the decree and failed to discharge the burden to prove substantial, quantifiable improvement or contribution to property acquired before marriage, the Deceased's will is valid and governs the estate, therefore the Enclosure 60 claim is dismissed with costs.