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

2016 MarsdenLR 22

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
YAP YEN PIOW – Appellant
Versus
HEE WEE ENG – Respondent


[1] The appellant/husband petitioner's appeal in respect of distribution of matrimonial assets and/or orders for payment, etc; came up for hearing on30 June 2016 and upon hearing, we reserved judgment and requested parties to submit as to meaning of matrimonial assets within the frame work of s 76 of Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (LRA 1976). My learned brothers Abdul Rahman bin Sebli JCA and Prasad Sandosham Abraham JCA have read the draft judgment and approved the same.

Preliminaries

[2] At the outset, it must be stated that the related matrimonial legislation in England, Singapore, etc in respect of division of matrimonial assets is not one and the same. The jurisprudence in almost all jurisdiction attempts to make a distinction between matrimonial assets and non-matrimonial assets and assets which were acquired before the marriage. As a general rule, assets which were acquired before the marriage are excluded in most of the jurisdictions in which we often rely as judicial precedent.

[3] Section 76 of LRA 1976 does not define what is matrimonial asset. For purpose of convenience, we propose to classify the matrimonial assets into two parts. One is matrimonial property

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top