Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

Chai v Peng (No 2) [2014] EWHC 1519 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 22:29 PM
Slug : chai-v-peng-no-2-2014-ewhc-1519-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 2, 2014, 04:48 AM
Article ID : 116617

(Family Division, Holman J, 1 May 2014)


[The judicially approved judgment and accompanying headnote has now published in Family Law Reports [2015] 1 FLR 637]

Please see the attached file below for the full judgment.

Divorce – Jurisdiction – Maintenance pending suit

The wife was granted permission to withdraw her current divorce petition and issue a fresh one in order to anchor the date for domicile and habitual residence and further orders for maintenance pending suit were made.

The husband and wife were married for 42 years. The wife, who had no independent means, lived in England and Wales and initiated divorce proceedings there while the wealthy husband claimed to be living in Malaysia and brought proceedings there. The issue of jurisdiction was scheduled to be heard later in the year but the wife applied for maintenance pending suit and also for permission to issue a fresh divorce petition in order to anchor the date for which domicile and habitual residence were decided which she argued would eliminate areas of dispute from the jurisdiction proceedings. The wife was granted permission to withdraw her petition and issue fresh proceedings.

The judge further ordered the wife be paid £35,000 pm pending the jurisdiction hearing, £60,000 to cover the costs of further negotiations and £30,000 pm for legal costs. The wife’s application for an order for £115,000 to discharge her outstanding legal costs was refused.

The fully referenced, judicially approved judgment and headnote will appear in a forthcoming issue of Family Law Reports. A detailed summary and analysis of the case will appear in Family Law. __________________________________________________________________

Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWHC 1519 (Fam)
     No. FD13D00747
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
     FAMILY DIVISION
     Royal Courts of Justice

1st May 2014

B e f o r e :

MR JUSTICE HOLMAN (sitting throughout in public) 

___________________

PAULINE SIEW PHIN CHAI
 Petitioner

- and -

TAN SRI DR KHOO KAY PENG
 Respondent

____________________

MR R. TODD QC and MR N. YATES (instructed by Vardags) appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
     MR T. BISHOP QC, MRS R. BAILEY-HARRIS and MISS K. COOK (instructed by Payne Hicks Beach) appeared on behalf of the respondent.

____________________

JUDGMENT


Chai v Peng (No 2) [2014] EWHC 1519 (Fam)

Categories :
  • Judgments
  • Marriage and Divorce
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from