Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Enforcement of consent orders

Legal area

Court

10 Jan 2025

TSR BINA SDN BHD 1. ) LEE CHEE KAY 2. ) LEE CHEE ONN

Citation

WA-22NCvC-469-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-469-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The defendants personally gave an unequivocal undertaking recorded in a consent order; the trigger events occurred; the undertaking is enforceable against them personally (the fact the monies were paid to their company does not absolve them) and there is no triable issue; therefore summary judgment is entered compelling the defendants to pay the RM1,000,000 forthwith.
6 Dec 2023

PEMPETISYEN 1. ) CHARLES LEE YONG KING 2. ) CHOONG LIN XIN

Citation

BA-33JP-1219-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-33JP-1219-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The husband failed to discharge the legal burden to prove a material change in circumstances by a balance of probabilities because he withheld current payslips and full financial disclosure; an adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act 1950 was drawn against him; consequently the variation application was dismissed. However the wife's discovery application was necessary and granted because the requested payslips are relevant and in the husband's possession or control and are required to calculate and enforce the maintenance terms of the consent order. Property transfer terms could not be v…
1 Nov 2023

PEMPETISYEN Slsl 1. ) Tkh 2. ) Llk

Citation

BA-33-915-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-33-915-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Paragraph 3 of the 2.4.2019 Consent Order is ambiguous and lacks a specific timeframe; because committal is penal and requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of a deliberate wilful breach, the petitioner failed to discharge the burden and the committal application (and related appeal) is dismissed.
10 Mar 2022

MEGA PALM SDN. BHD & ORS HUN TEE SIANG & 31 ORS

Citation

W-02(IM)(NCvC)-1557-08/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(NCvC)-1557-08/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the Consent Order contained terms (notably paragraphs 9 and 10) that went beyond the ambit of the original Suit 698; because the consent order thus embodied a new agreement outside the original action's scope a fresh action (the OS) was necessary and the High Court therefore had jurisdiction to hear the OS; the Judicial Commissioner correctly refused to strike out the OS and the appeal was dismissed with costs.
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.

Malaysia Case Law

TSR BINA SDN BHD 1. ) LEE CHEE KAY 2. ) LEE CHEE ONN

PEMPETISYEN 1. ) CHARLES LEE YONG KING 2. ) CHOONG LIN XIN

PEMPETISYEN Slsl 1. ) Tkh 2. ) Llk

MEGA PALM SDN. BHD & ORS HUN TEE SIANG & 31 ORS

NG PEI LING Sai Kim Seng