Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Access and visitation

  • 30 Sept 2024

    HISAO TATEISHI TOMOKO TATEISHI

    Citation
    BA-24F-90-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-24F-90-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Malaysian court declined jurisdiction on forum non conveniens grounds because Japan has the most real and substantial connection, Japanese courts of competent jurisdiction had fully adjudicated access and custody (ordering indirect contact only), the matter is res judicata and allowing relitigation in Malaysia would be forum shopping and misuse of process; therefore the Plaintiff's application was dismissed with costs.

  • 26 Aug 2022

    Min Sam Joyce Choong Yian May

    Citation
    WA-24F-51-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-24F-51-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The child was not abducted and Malaysian courts had jurisdiction; the plaintiff failed to rebut the s88(3) presumption because the child is young, non-verbal and has autism-spectrum symptoms and is dependent on the mother as primary caregiver; on welfare grounds the child should remain with the mother in Malaysia; accordingly the defendant was awarded sole guardianship, custody, care and control, the plaintiff was granted access limited to Malaysia (daily virtual access and overnight unsupervised access when in Malaysia), no maintenance was ordered against the plaintiff, and other reliefs in…

  • 26 Aug 2022

    Min Sam Joyce Choong Yian May

    Citation
    WA-24F-51-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-24F-51-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The court found the Child was not abducted and Malaysia had jurisdiction; the plaintiff failed to rebut the s88(3) presumption that a young child should be with her mother; given the Child's developmental needs (autism spectrum symptoms), continuous caregiving by the mother, and the acrimonious parental relationship, it is in the Child's welfare to remain with the mother; accordingly the Defendant was granted sole guardianship and custody while the Plaintiff was granted limited access; no maintenance was ordered against the Plaintiff; costs were awarded against the Defendant.

  • 23 Nov 2021

    1. ) H 2. ) W(F) W(F)(2)

    Citation
    xxxxxx (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    xxxxxx (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Applying s11 (welfare paramount) and s10 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1961, the court found the child's welfare required removal of the testamentary guardian and appointment of the biological father as sole guardian of the person because the plaintiffs offered better financial resources, a stable home, supportive social welfare reports, evidence of willingness by the Second Plaintiff to care for the child, the defendant had obstructed access and parties could not act jointly; the existing ex parte order did not immunize the defendant from removal under s10 when welfare required change.