M A T v 1. ) K A T 2. ) N A T PIHAK YANG DINAMAKAN 1. ) S A T 2. ) H A T
Catchwords
Family law - Jurisdiction of court - Wife filing winding-up petition of company in Winding-Up Court - Both husband and wife had pleaded in their petitions for judicial separation and divorce respectively the shares of that company as matrimonial assets - Whether Family Court had jurisdiction to prevent wife from winding up company in winding up court - Whether wife had already submitted to jurisdiction of Family Court - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, section 76 Family law - Company law - Wife filing winding-up petition of company in Winding-Up Court - Both husband and wife had pleaded in their petitions for judicial separation and divorce respectively the shares of that company as matrimonial assets - Whether Fortuna injunction warranted to prevent wife from further proceeding in Winding-Up Court - Purpose of Fortuna Injunction - Whether there was abuse of the process of court - Companies Act 2016, sections 466, 442, 472 Family law - Company law - Wife filing winding-up petition of company in Winding-Up Court - Both husband and wife had pleaded in their petitions for judicial separation and divorce respectively the shares of that company as matrimonial assets - Whether quia time injunction warranted to prevent wife from further dissipating matrimonial assets until final disposal of judicial separation and divorce petition - Specific Relief Act 1950, section 50
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Case Significance
M A T v 1. ) K A T 2. ) N A T PIHAK YANG DINAMAKAN 1. ) S A T 2. ) H A T is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated March 25, 2025 (citation: wa-33-160-04-2024). The case was decided by Evrol Mariette Peters.
What was the outcome of M A T v 1. ) K A T 2. ) N A T PIHAK YANG DINAMAKAN 1. ) S A T 2. ) H A T?
M A T v 1. ) K A T 2. ) N A T PIHAK YANG DINAMAKAN 1. ) S A T 2. ) H A T is a High Court decision dated March 25, 2025. The case was heard by Evrol Mariette Peters. See the full judgment for details.