The court reiterated that consent orders are rarely disturbed unless exceptional circumstances arise to justify intervention and valid service of notice is crucial for proceedings.

[1] This is an application (encl 103) filed by the respondent husband/first respondent ("RH") under s 96 and 97 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce Act 1976 (Act 164) ("the said Act") or under O 92 r 4 Rules of 2012 ("RC 2012"), seeking to amend/vary the terms in the consent order entered by Petitioner Wife and RH on 1 March 2017("the said consent order"), whereby parties had mutually agreed that a list of properties to be transferred to the children of the marriage. RH alleged that PW had failed to comply with the terms in the said consent order and has failed to transfer the said properties to the children of the marriage. RH is now seeking an order that if PW neglects or refuses to execute the transfer documents, the Senior Assistant Registrar be given the right to execute all relevant documents to give effect to the transfer of her undivided half share in the said properties to the children of the marriage.

[2] For ease of reference I shall reproduce (briefly) the claim by RH against PW as follows:

"(1) Penghakiman Persetujuan bertarikh 1 Mac 2009 dipinda (variasi) seperti mana digariskan dengan dakwat merah dalam Cadangan Penghakiman Persetujuan Terpinda seperti yang dicadangkan dalam "Lampiran A"

I reproduce (briefly) Lampiran A as follows:

"Lampiran A

(7) Jika Pempetisyen ingkar ataupun tidak dapat menandatangi dokumen- dokumen pindah mi/ik pindah milik harta-harta tersebut diatas maka Penolong Kanan Pendaftar Mahkamah dibenarkan untuk menandatangani dokum en - dokumen tersebut dan apa-apa dokumen lain bagi tujuan memindah milik dan/atau membuat sebarang urusan lain yang berkaitan dengan pindah milik pindah milik harta-harta tersebut di atas;"

[3] The relevant cause papers are as follows:

(a) Enclosure 101: The consent order dated 1 March 2017;

(b) Enclosure 103: RH's application to amend encl 101, filed on 21 November 2018

(c) Enclosure 104: Affidavit in support (1) affirmed by Tee Kim Tiam on 2 November 2018;

(c) Enclosure 105: Affidavit in support (2) affirmed by Tee Ah Mooi (PW's mother) on 2 November 2018;

(d) Enclosure 106: Affidavit in service affirmed by Muhammad Fuad Ismail on 21 December 2018.

BRIEF FACTS

[4] Briefly, PW and RH were divorced on 1 March 2017 and the decree nisi was made absolute immediately. Parties had agreed on the terms regarding custody, care and control of the children of the marriage and regarding matrimonial assets/properties. The term of the consent order that RH is now applying to vary is by inserting a new para (7) giving rights to the Senior Assistant Registrar of the High Court to execute the memorandum of transfer and other related documents to effect the transfer of the said matrimonial assets to the children of the marriage in the event of the failure of PW to do so.

[5] According to RH the terms stated at para 3, 4, 5, and 6 in the said consent order stated that PW is to transfer the said properties to the children of the marriage. These are the terms agreed to by parties which for ease of reference are reproduced below:

"(3) Pempetisyen memindah milik 1/2 bahagian sebuah Rumah Banglo Bersambung Tiga Tingkat Setengah dikenali sebagai No Pelak 6-1 dan 6- 2, Jenis B1 (Unit Tengah) dengan keluasan berukuran lebih kurang 355 meter persegi dan beralamat di Unit 6, The Ara, No 1, Jalan Kapas, Bukit Bandaraya, Bangsar, 59100 Kuala Lumpur bersama No Pelak Aksesori 22, 23 & 24 di Tingkat Bawah Tan ah dan Taman Tingkat Bawah dengan keluasan berukuran lebih kurang 101 meter persegi dalam projek perumahan dikenali sebagai "THE ARA" dibina alas tanah-tanah dipegang bawah hakmilik-hakmilik induk derail 7626, 7627, 7628, 7629, No Lot 40420, 40421, 40422, 40423, kesemuanya berada di Mukim Kuala Lumpur,