Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 560 views

    Mahon V Mahon (1971)

    Uploaded by

    saifullah_
    The petitioner applied for divorce from her husband in Malaysia, claiming she had been ordinarily resident there for 3 years prior. However, she had spent 15 months in Ireland in that period. The High Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, but the Federal Court allowed the appeal. It held that ordinary residence requires a sufficient degree of permanence, and the petitioner had lived in Malaysia since 1955, so her temporary absence in Ireland did not negate her ordinary residence in Malaysia.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Mahon V Mahon (1971)

    Uploaded by

    saifullah_
    560 views6 pages
    The petitioner applied for divorce from her husband in Malaysia, claiming she had been ordinarily resident there for 3 years prior. However, she had spent 15 months in Ireland in that period. The High Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, but the Federal Court allowed the appeal. It held that ordinary residence requires a sufficient degree of permanence, and the petitioner had lived in Malaysia since 1955, so her temporary absence in Ireland did not negate her ordinary residence in Malaysia.

    Original Title

    MAHON V MAHON [1971]

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner applied for divorce from her husband in Malaysia, claiming she had been ordinarily resident there for 3 years prior. However, she had spent 15 months in Ireland in that period. The High Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, but the Federal Court allowed the appeal. It held that ordinary residence requires a sufficient degree of permanence, and the petitioner had lived in Malaysia since 1955, so her temporary absence in Ireland did not negate her ordinary residence in Malaysia.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    560 views6 pages

    Mahon V Mahon (1971)

    Uploaded by

    saifullah_
    The petitioner applied for divorce from her husband in Malaysia, claiming she had been ordinarily resident there for 3 years prior. However, she had spent 15 months in Ireland in that period. The High Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, but the Federal Court allowed the appeal. It held that ordinary residence requires a sufficient degree of permanence, and the petitioner had lived in Malaysia since 1955, so her temporary absence in Ireland did not negate her ordinary residence in Malaysia.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 6

    MAHON V MAHON [1971]

    2 MLJ 266

    AMIERA SYAKINAH BT ZULKIFLI 2008401836


    FATINA AMYRA BT ABDUL JALIL 2008401834
    NOR DIANA BT NOR AZWA 2008401838
    NUR SURIATI BT MOHAMAD 2008401806
    SYARIAH BT HASSIM 2008409012
    WAN HAFSAH BT WAN MUHAMAD SARIDAN 2008409018
     Facts of the case:
    The petitioner applied for dissolution of her
    marriage with the respondent. The parties were
    domiciled in Ireland but the petitioner claimed that
    she was ordinarily resident in Malaysia for the last
    three years immediately preceding the
    commencement of the proceedings. On the facts
    although the petitioner had resided in Penang she
    was absent in Ireland for about 15 months out of
    the preceding 36 months. The petitioner owned a
    furnished dwelling in Dublin and had a half share in
    another house in Dublin. The children of the
    marriage were living in Ireland and the petitioner
    said that she intended to return and settle down in
    Ireland with her children after the conclusion of the
    proceeding.
    The law in issue:

    S. 49 (1)(b) Divorce Ordinance 1952

    S.49(1) Without prejudice to any jurisdiction exercisable by


    the court apart from this section, and notwithstanding the
    provisions of paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of section 4,
    the court shall by virtue of this section have jurisdiction to
    entertain proceedings by a wife in any of the following cases,
    notwithstanding that the husband is not domiciled in the
    Federation, that is to say:--
     (b) in the case of proceedings for divorce or nullity of
    marriage and any proceedings consequent thereupon, if the
    wife is resident in the Federation and has been ordinarily
    resident there for a period of three years immediately
    preceding the commencement of the proceedings.
    Principle:
    1. High Court
     The main issue in the proceeding was whether the

    court has jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner


    application for divorce.
     The basis for invoking the jurisdiction of the court

    came from section 49(1)(b) where the petitioner had


    been ordinarily resident in this country for the 3
    years immediately preceding the commencement of
    this proceedings.
     The court held that the petitioner was ‘ordinarily

    resident ‘ in the Federation because they have no


    house of their own in this country and they have clear
    intention to return to their country of origin. So, the
    petition must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
    2. Federal Court

     The issue is whether the wife was "ordinarily resident" in


    Malaysia even if she was away in Ireland during 15 months
    of the 3 years immediately preceding the filing of the
    petition.

     The court used the case of Levene v Commissioners of


    Inland Revenue [1928] to define the word ‘reside’ as 'to
    dwell permanently or for considerable time, to have one's
    settled or usual abode, to live in or at a particular place’.
     Fox v Stirk [1970] – 3 principles highlighted in this case
    a) that a man can have two residences. He can have a flat in London
    and a house in the country. He is resident in both.
    b) temporary presence at an address does not make a man a resident
    there. A guest who comes for the weekend is not resident. A short-
    stay visitor is not resident.
    c) that temporary absence does not deprive a person of his residence.
    If he happens to be away for a holiday or away for the weekend or in
    hospital, he does not lose his residence on that ccount.

     The court highlighted that section 49(1)(b) is meant intended to


    prevent transient visitors, who are not bona fide resident, with some
    degree of permanence, in the Federation from availing themselves of
    the court's assistance.

     The court held that the court allowed the appeal because there can be
    no doubt that the petitioner had been "ordinarily resident" in the
    Federation since 1955 as she has a considerable (sufficient) degree of
    permanence where the greater must include the lesser. 

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy