KONG WAN LOOI v 1. ) ONG POO LEE 2. ) CHEN VIN CI

Case Significance

Illustrates the consequences of non-compliance with case-management directions in family proceedings, and the court's willingness to advance a respondent's cross-petition and strike out a claim against a co-respondent where a party fails to meet its pre-trial obligations.

This High Court decision at Johor Bahru, in the Family Division and delivered by Wong Mee Ling J, concerns the case management of a contested divorce. The petitioner had filed a divorce petition against the first respondent seeking, among other things, a divorce, custody, care and control of the child, maintenance, the sale of the matrimonial properties with a division of the proceeds, and substantial damages of RM500,000 for the mental distress and embarrassment said to have resulted from adultery, the claim being directed against the first respondent and a second respondent joined as co-respondent. The first respondent filed a reply and cross-petition seeking, among other things, a divorce, joint custody, care and control to the petitioner, and maintenance of the child.

The question the Court addressed was one of case-management discipline: whether the Court could deal with the petition and allow the first respondent's cross-petition because of the petitioner's failure to comply with the Court's directives, including the filing of pre-trial documents by the deadline. The Court referred to the professional obligations of counsel under the Legal Profession (Etiquette and Conduct) Rules 1978 — including Rule 6, that an advocate and solicitor should not accept a brief unless reasonably certain of being able to appear, and Rule 24, that counsel must make every effort to be ready for the day fixed for trial — underlining that readiness for trial and compliance with directions are the responsibility of the parties and their counsel.

Based on those considerations, the Court allowed the first respondent's cross-petition in respect of the relief identified at paragraph 58 of its grounds, and struck out the petitioner's claim against the second respondent. The judgment is a useful illustration of the consequences of non-compliance with case-management directions in family proceedings, and of the court's willingness to advance the respondent's cross-petition and strike out a claim against a co-respondent where a party fails to meet its pre-trial obligations.