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

2004 MarsdenLR 1386

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
HERBERT THOMAS SMALL – Appellant
Versus
ELIZABETH MARY SMALL (KERAJAAN MALAYSIA & ANOR INTERVENERS) – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: S8-24-994 of 2004]



JUDGMENT

Faiza Tamby Chik J:

[1] The defendant wife in her summons in chambers dated 28 July 2004 in encl(17) prayed as follows:

(i) The interim order of this honourable court dated 24 May 2005 be set aside.

(ii) The child Lucinda Anna Nicolls-Small be delivered forthwith into the custody, care and control of the defendant mother in accordance with the Australian court order dated 25 May 2004.

(iii) The child Lucinda Anna Nicolls-Small be returned forthwith to Australia.

(iv) Alternatively, that guardianship, custody, care and control of the child Lucinda Anna Nicolls-small be granted to the defendant mother, Elisabeth Mary Small.

(v) Costs of the proceedings herein be borne by the plaintiff.

(vi) Any further and/or other relief which this court deems fit and just.

[2] From the pleadings and affidavits filed in this case, the facts are that The defendant wife and the plaintiff husband were married on 11 May 1991. The daughter, Lucinda Anna Nicolls-Small ('the daughter') was born on 26 March 1992. The plaintiff husband, the defendant wife and the daughter are all Australian citizens. The plaintiff is a retired airline pilot, having retired in early 1994. The defendant wife is a qualified registered nurse. The defendant wife, the plaintiff husband and the daughter resided in the UK from 1994 to 1997, but returned to Australia in December 1998. The defendant wife and the daughter have been living in Australia from that time to December 2002. The daughter had been well-settled in Australia and was schooling in Australia prior to her abduction by the plaintiff husband. The defendant wife and plaintiff husband had been having marital problems for some time. They were living apart at the time of the daughter's abduction by the plaintiff husband, the plaintiff husband having moved out of their matrimonial home. The daughter remained living with and in the custody and care of the defendant wife. In December 2002, the plaintiff husband left Australia with the daughter ostensibly for a holiday to the United Kingdom, France and Italy. The plaintiff husband and the daughter did not return to Australia by the end of January 2003 as scheduled, for the start of the daughter's school term. Unknown to the defendant wife, the plaintiff husband and the daughter entered Malaysia in January 2003 and without the defendant wife's knowledge and/or consent, registered the daughter at the Fairview international School in Kuala Lumpur. Upon the plaintiff's failure to return the daughter, and upon realising he had no intention to do so, the defendant wife applied to the Australian Courts on 4 February 2003 for orders for the custody and return of the daughter to Australia. The defendant wife obtained an interim Australian court order dated 17 April 2003 for, among others, the daughter to reside with the defendant wife, that the defendant wife have the sole responsibility for the day to day care, welfare and development of the daughter, and that the husband return the daughter forthwith to her in Australia. It is noted that the Australian order of 17 April 2003 also provided for the defendant wife to be issued with 'such travel documents as are necessary to enable the child Lucinda Anna Nicolls-Small,... to travel to Australia. To issue the defendant wife with a passport to enable the daughter to travel to Australia, the daughter's own passport had to be cancelled and this was promptly done by the Australian authorities. On 19 August 2003, the defendant husband was issued a Visit Pass (Social) by Malaysian immigration under the 'Malaysia My Second Home Programme 'whereby he is permitted to enter and remain in West Malaysia and Sabah only until 18 August 2005. On 7 October 2003, the defendant wife obtained another Interim Australian Order to among others, restrain the husband from causing the young daughter to undergo a psychiatric/psychological evaluation. The plaintiff had filed two affidavits in the Australian proceedings, both affirmed on 6 October 2003, and had

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