SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 MarsdenLR 1154

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
TAN BEE GEOK – Appellant
Versus
THAI KIM SIM & ANOR; LIN WOON FUI (PARTY CITED) – Respondent
[Judicial Separation Petition No: WA-33-238-04/2022]



The Court clarified its authority to amend orders and emphasized adherence to its directives, ruling against mischaracterization of its orders and confirming the effective date for asset freezing.

Headnote:(A) Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 - Section 102 - Clarification of Court Order regarding asset disposition during divorce proceedings - The Court Order prohibited the First Respondent from transferring or disposing of 50% of his assets; however, the Bank erroneously froze 100% of the account, misinterpreting the Order as a Mareva injunction. (Paras 9-18)

(B) Effective Date - The Court clarified that the effective date for freezing funds is the date the Court Order was issued, 10 January 2024, unless explicitly stated otherwise. (Paras 20-24)

(C) Inclusion of Supermax Corporation Berhad - The Court ruled that speculative references to non-existent assets undermine clarity in Court Orders and should be omitted. (Paras 26-30)

(D) Power to Clarify - The Court affirmed its authority to clarify and amend previous orders under the 'liberty to apply' provision, ensuring compliance and addressing misinterpretations. (Paras 39-46) (E) Conduct of Parties - The Petitioner overstepped the Court's mandate, leading to the necessity for clarification. (Paras 47-49)

JUDGMENT

Evrol Mariette Peters J:

Introduction

[1] This is the First Respondent-Husband's application ("this Application") in encl 157 for clarification of the Court Order dated 10 January 2024, and for a consequential order to give effect to the Court Order.

The Factual Background

[2] The Petitioner-Wife and First Respondent-Husband (collectively "The Parties"), aged 63 and 64 respectively at the time of the hearing of this Application, were married in August 1987 and had three children ("the Children") born respectively in 1987, 1991, and 1994.

[3] The marriage was unable to withstand the test of time and amidst numerous allegations made against each other, the Petitioner filed for judicial separation in April 2022 ("the Judicial Separation") whilst the First Respondent filed a divorce petition in April 2024 ("the Divorce Petition").

[4] Numerous interlocutory applications and applications for ancillary relief were filed by both Parties. In June 2023, the Petitioner filed an application for ancillary relief ("Enclosure 68"), seeking, amongst others, an injunction pursuant to s 102 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 ("Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act"), which reads:

Section 102 - Power for to set aside and prevent dispositions intended to defeat claims to maintenance

(1) Where-

(a) any matrimonial proceeding is pending; or

(b) an order has been made under s 76 and has not been complied with; or

(c) an order for maintenance has been made under s 77 or s 93 and has not been rescinded; or

(d) maintenance is payable under any agreement to or for the benefit of a spouse or former spouse or child,

the Court shall have power on application:-

(i) if it is satisfied that any disposition of property has been made by the spouse or former spouse or parent of the person by or on whose behalf the application is made, within the preceding three years, with the object on the part of the person making the disposition of reducing his or her means to pay maintenance or of depriving his or her spouse of any rights in relation to that property, to set aside the disposition; and

(ii) if it is satisfied that any disposition of property is intended to be made with any such object, to grant an injunction preventing that disposition.

(2) For the purposes of this section-

"disposition" includes a sale, gift, lease, mortgage or any other transaction whereby ownership or possession of the property is transferred or encumbered but does not include a disposition made for money or money's worth to or in favour of a person acting in good faith and in ignorance of the object with which the disposition is made;

"property" means property of any nature, movable or immovable, and includes money.

[5] In January 2024, the application for ancillary relief was allowed by this Court in part ("the Court Order") in the following manner:

(a) Bahawa Responden Pertama samada melalui dirinya sendiri, ejen, wakil, pengkhidmat, pekerja atau sebaliknya dihalang sehingga Perintah lanjut daripada memindahkan, mengeluarkan, menggadai, membebankan ('encumber') dalam apa jua cara sekalipun, berurusan atau sebaliknya melupuskan, melesapkan, mengurangkan nilai atau berasing dengan apa jua cara ke atas 50% bahagian asset atau hartanah dalam nama tunggal Responden Pertama, yang adalah termasuk tetapi tidak terhad kepada aset-aset yang dinyatakan seperti berikut:-

(b) Responden Pertama hendaklah memfailkan dan menyampaikan afidavit yang mengandungi butir-butir penuh mengenai harta-harta dan pendapatannya termasuk dan tidak terhad kepada semua aset, akaun bank sama ada di dalam atau di luar Malaysia yang dimiliki olehnya dalam tempoh 14 hari dari tarikh Perintah ini;

(c) Pempetisyen hendaklah dalam masa 14 hari selepas penyampaian Afidavit di perenggan b di atas, memfailkan dan menyampaikan Afidavit yang mengandungi butir-butir penuh mengenai harta-harta dan pendapatannya; termasuk dan tidak terhad kepada semua aset akaun bank sama ada di dalam atau di luar Malaysia yang dimili


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top