Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Access

  • 28 Jun 2024

    Chen Teck Shin Foo Chi Mei BUKAN PIHAK-PIHAK TANG POOI FUN

    Citation
    WA-24F-262-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-24F-262-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Defendant proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Plaintiff wilfully breached clear terms of the Court Order on multiple occasions (failure to return children as scheduled, refusal to disclose police report, prolonged retention of passports) amounting to contempt; accordingly contempt established and a monetary fine with conditional imprisonment was imposed.

  • 13 Jun 2024

    V A L V A N

    Citation
    WA-24F-30-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-24F-30-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Application dismissed with costs because it was procedurally flawed, lacked substantive and contemporaneous evidence (police report hearsay and delayed), relied on uncorroborated and contextless video recordings susceptible to manipulation, prior psychiatric assessment cleared the Plaintiff, police/DPP took no further action, no special circumstances existed to justify a stay, and the application bore indicia of bad faith aimed at denying access.

  • 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…

  • 17 Aug 2023

    CHANG WAI LING SOO CHONG LIM

    Citation
    BA-24F-311-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-24F-311-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The Respondent failed to prove on a balance of probabilities any material change of circumstances sufficient to vary custody, access or reduce maintenance: medical illness claims were unsupported by medical reports, financial disclosures were incomplete and inconsistent with his lifestyle, and his conduct showed lack of commitment to childcare; therefore the original order dated 2.3.2021 remains appropriate and the variation application is dismissed.

  • 16 Apr 2023

    PEMPETISYEN ONG TZE HOW CHONG CHAR CHYEE

    Citation
    JA-33-198-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    JA-33-198-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Applicant failed to prove a material change in circumstances or exceptional circumstances required to vary a consent decree under s.96; evidential record (audio/video) was insufficient and possibly influenced; judicial interview of the children supported maintaining the status quo; therefore variation refused.

  • 6 Oct 2022

    TANG HENG KIT Cindy Ong Pik Yin

    Citation
    WA-24F-294-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-24F-294-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Plaintiff failed to rebut the s88(3) presumption and did not adduce admissible or sufficiently probative evidence to show Defendant was an unfit parent; children’s welfare, expressed wishes and established caregiving environment favored Defendant; consequently joint guardianship and custody granted to both parents with primary care and control to the Defendant and liberal access to the Plaintiff.

  • 27 Jan 2022

    NG PEI LING Sai Kim Seng

    Citation
    JA-24F-313-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    JA-24F-313-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Although Applicant challenged service under Order 52 r.2B and r.4(3), the court found she was aware of the order, had responded via solicitors, evaded service, and was not prejudiced; the Applicant wilfully and contumaciously breached a clear consent Court Order regarding access to the child, proven beyond reasonable doubt, warranting punishment to enforce compliance; accordingly the committal application was allowed and a fine with custodial fallback was imposed.