Hearing

HOW TO ANSWER JUDGE’S Q:
Yang Arif, thank you for your question. In response to your query about [refer to the specific
point of the question],..." (Provide your answer with supporting evidence if applicable).
Need time to answer?
1. "Thank you for your question, Yang Arif. To give you the most accurate response, I may
need a moment to review my notes.
You don't understand your Q?
1. "Your Lordship, to ensure I'm fully understanding your question, could you please
rephrase or clarify the specific aspect you'd like me to address?"
Related case?
1. "Yang Arif, thank you for your question. The case we attached is [Case Name] decided
by the [Court Name] in [Year].
In that case, the court was faced with the issue of [Legal Issue]. Similarly, in our case,
we are also dealing with the question of [Your Legal Issue].
The court in [Case Name] ruled that [Court's Ruling]. This is significant because [Explain
how the ruling is relevant to your case].
Therefore, we believe that the reasoning and outcome of [Case Name] are directly
applicable to our case and support our argument that [Your Argument]."
"Yang Arif, I'd like to bring to your attention the case of……………………….. decided in
..what year….. At Mahkamah mana?. In that case, the plaintiff faced a similar situation
where [briefly explain the facts of the case]. The court ultimately ruled that [explain the
court's holding]. In this case, just as in Brown v. Jones, [explain how the case is relevant
to yours]."
EXAMPLE:
Yang Arif, I’d like to bring to your attention the case of Tan Yin Wah v Choo Fong Yen
decided in 2020 at High Court of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur where the plaintiff applied
petition for annulment of marriage on the ground incapacity of either party to have sexual
intercourse within the meaning of S. 70 (a) of the Law Reform Act…
In this case, the petitioner is ………………………………… and the respondent

is………………………………….The petitioner petitioned this court to annul his second
marriage with the respondent on two ground which, first: that the marriage has not been
consummated & second: both petitioner & respondent deliberate refusal to consummate
the said marriage. The respondent does not deny that marriage was never consummate
however, she opposed the petitioner's application to annul the marriage.
The court held:
Therefore, we believe that the reasoning and outcome of Tan Yin Wah v Choo Fong Yen
are directly applicable to our case and support our argument that [Your Argument]."
2nd case:
Yang Arif, I’d like to bring to your attention the case of Kirthiga Suthan Kathiravellu
Shaalini Gajedran decided in 2023 at the High Court of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur. Where
this case is a joint petition. This case was concerned about the joint petition for nullity of
marriage filed by both petitioners on the basis that they had no interest in remaining
married to each other.
There are two stands that the petitioner applied for:

1. S.70 (a)
2. S.70 (b)
The court found that in this case, the counsel for both prove that they are ab;e to nullify
the marriage based on S. 70(a) and (b).
Allow me to start with para (a) where the court be;eives that it is a mistake for this
petition as this petition is a joint petition. Other tha that. S.70 (b) that the refusal to
consummate must on the part of the respondent and not petitioner. As stated before this,
this is a joint petition made by both petitioners.
Next allow me to proceed with s.70 (a). The court held in this case that there was no
evidence to indicate rhatr either [arty was incapable of consummating the marriage as
the gist of this provision was that there must be some element of physiological/sexual
aversion.
The sole reason for us to refer to this case is to prove that in order for a petitioner to
petition for annulment of marriage on the ground of non-consummation of marriage, the
petitioner must prove that there is refusal to consummate the marriage on behalf of the
respondent. This case contradicted our case as our case was relying on the ground
incapacity of one party to consummate the marriage at the time of the wedding and due
to a continuing state of incapacity as stated in S.70 (a) of LRA. As in our case, the
respondent suffered with vaginismus and has a severe physical condition that makes
penetration impossible and this condition existed at the time of the marriage and
continues to be present, it could be argued as a case of incapacity under Section 70 (a).
Therefore, it fulfills the criteria of physical incapacity existing at the time of marriage and
continuing thereafter.

Hearing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hearing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hearing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HOW TO ANSWER JUDGE’S Q:

Need time to answer?

You don't understand your Q?

In this case, the petitioner is ………………………………… and the respondent

The court held:

There are two stands that the petitioner applied for:

You might also like