Back
2022 MarsdenLR 2208
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
WONG CHOI MEI – Appellant
Versus
CHEW LOON ENG – Respondent
[Divorce Petition No: WA-33-1517-10/2013]
Strict compliance with divorce rules is necessary for any application to alter child support provisions; unilateral actions without proven necessity do not constitute valid legal grounds.
Headnote:(A) Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980 – Rules 56, 58, 61, and 63 – Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 – Section 96 – Application to rescind clauses of decree nisi regarding child education provisions – Application dismissed due to procedural non-compliance and failure to prove material change in circumstances – Respondent unilaterally altered education program for Child and claimed sufficiency of fixed deposit funds was unfounded. (Paras 10, 18, 31-38)
Facts of the case:
The Respondent sought to rescind clauses regarding a fixed deposit and a trust for the Child's education, arguing insufficient necessity due to a unilateral decision on schooling.
Findings of Court:
Respondent's claims about material changes were found unsubstantiated as Child's education and living arrangements were governed by the Order without breach.
Issues
: Procedural compliance in rescinding an order; substantiation of material changes in circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi:
Non-compliance with mandatory provisions constitutes a valid ground for dismissal; material change must affect the terms of support significantly, and wishes of Child must also be considered.
Result:
Application dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] This was an application ("this Application") by the Respondent husband in enclosure 46 to rescind clauses 5 and 6 of the decree nisi dated 21 January 2015 and to cancel the Trustees Agreement dated 12 October 2015 ("the Trustees Agreement") that was entered into pursuant to the decree nisi.
The Factual Background
[2] The Petitioner wife had filed the divorce petition in October 2013 and, by consent, terms were recorded in t he decree nisi granted on 21 January 2015 , which was made absolute on 23 June 2015 ("the Order").
[3] The relevant terms are found in clauses 3, 5, and 6 of the Order, which included provisions for the child of the marriage ("the Child"):
3. Responden akan dalam satu bulan dari tarikh Penghakiman ini meletakkan jumlah sebanyak Ringgit Malaysia Satu Ratus Ribu Sahaja (RM100,000.00) di dalam satu akaun amanah diatas nama Responden di sebuah bank dimana jumlah tersebut akan diletakkan di bawah deposit tetap (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai "Deposit Tetap tersebut") dan hanya boleh dikeluarkan apabila Anak tersebut mencapai umur 18 tahun dan pengeluran jumlah tersebut hanya akan digunakan untuk pembayaran untuk fi tuisyen, fi kolej atau fi universiti;
.....
5. Unit Pangsapuri di Serendah yang beralamat di No. 8-301, Apartmen Chazara, Persiaran Meranti Utara, Serendah Golf Resort, 48200, Serendah, Selangor (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai "Unit Pangsapuri tersebut") akan dipegang oleh Responden dibawah satu perjanjian amanah yang tidak boleh ditarik balik (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai "Perjanjian Amanah tersebut") untuk Anak tersebut dan Perjanjian Amanah tersebut akan dilaksanakan oleh Responden dalam tempoh masa satu bulan dari tarikh Penghakiman ini. Sesalinan Perjanjian Amanah tersebut akan diberi oleh Responden kepada Pempetisyen sebagai simpanan Pempetisyen. Unit Pangsapuri tersebut hanya boleh dijual selepas jumlah wang di Deposit Tetap tersebut telah dihabiskan untuk pendidikan Anak tersebut. Selepas penjualan Unit Pangsapuri tersebut, hasil jualan akan dimasukkan dalam satu akaun amanah dan hasil jualan tersebut hanya boleh digunakan untuk pembayaran perbelanjaan pendidikan Anak tersebut;
6. Pempetisyen dibenarkan untuk tinggal di Unit Pangsapuri tersebut sepanjang masa sehinggalah Unit Pangsapuri tersebut dijual mengikuti klausa 6 Penghakiman ini ataupun Pempetisyen kahwin semula ataupun Pempetisyen berpindah dengan pasangan yang baru. Pempetisyen dibenarkan untuk menyewakan Unit Pangsapuri tersebut dan mengutip sewaan darinya. Pempetisyen akan diberi sesalinan surat persetujuan untuk menyewa dan kunci-kunci untuk Unit Pangsapuri tersebut oleh Responden dalam tempoh masa satu minggu dari tarikh Penghakiman ini;
[Emphasis Added]
[4] In essence, clause 3 stipulated that the sum of MYR100,000 was to be maintained by the Respondent in a fixed deposit account as a trustee, for the purpose of payment for the Child's education, including fees for tuition, college, and university.
[5] Clause 5 referred to an apartment ("the Apartment") that was to be held by the Respondent in trust pursuant to the Trustees Agreement, for the benefit of the Child. The Apartment could only be sold and the proceeds of sale used for the Child's education, only in the event that the monies held pursuant to clause 3 of the Order had been fully exhausted.
[6] In clause 6 of the Order, it was stipulated that the Petitioner would be allowed to stay in the Apartment until its sale, or until she remarries or moves out with her new partner. Alternatively, the Petitioner would be able to rent out the Apartment and collect the proceeds of rental until the Apartment is sold.
[7] In September 2020, after notifying the Respondent that the Child had enrolled at Brickfields Asia College (BAC) for the Foundation in Law program, the Petitioner requested the release of the sum pursuant to clause 3 of the Order, to pay for the fees for the United Kingdom Transfer Programme (UKTP), which the Child had intended to pursue.
[8
