Appeals court rules common law rule on wife's domicile constitutional, applies in Malaysia

PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal here today ruled that the common law rule stating that the wife's domicile must follow that of her husband, is constitutional and applies in Malaysia.
The three-member panel chaired by Datuk Balia Yusof Wahi, in an unanimous decision, dismissed former Miss Malaysia Puan Sri Pauline Chai Siew Phin's appeal to set aside a High Court ruling that the Malaysian Courts have the jurisdiction to hear the divorce petition brought by her husband tycoon Tan Sri Khoo Kay Peng.
Justice Balia said since the common law rule on domicile was still applicable in Malaysia, it applies to Chai, thus it was not opened to her to choose her domicile of her choice.
Following this decision, Khoo can proceed with his divorce petition in the Malaysian court.
Chai, 68, former Miss Malaysia/International 1969, wanted the British court to decide on the divorce proceedings because she no longer domiciled in Malaysia since 1980 and is currently living in England.
However, Khoo wanted the Malaysian courts to decide on their divorce proceedings.

Chai, was appealing against the decision of the High Court on Nov 28, last year which ruled that it had the jurisdiction to hear Khoo's divorce petition.
The Court of Appeal panel, which also comprised Justices Datuk Dr Hamid Sultan Abu Backer and Datuk Abdul Rahman Sebli dismissed Chai's appeal after ruling that it (the appeal) did not have merits. It (the court) upheld the decision of the High Court.
The court also ordered Chai to pay RM30,000 in legal cost to Khoo.
Justice Balia said the court also disagreed with the submission made by Chai's counsel Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram that the common law rule was unconstitutionality and was ultra vires Article 8 (1) and Article 8 (2) of the Federal Constitution because it violated Chai's right to be equal before the law and gender discrimination.
The court declined to hear Chai's oral application for a stay of the Court of Appeal's decision pending disposal of her leave to appeal at the Federal Court but told her lawyer Andrew Yong to make a formal stay application.
Khoo, 75, filed an application in the High Court for dispensation of the need to go before a reconciliation body before divorce under Section 106 of the Law Reform Marriage and Divorce Act.
On Dec 11, 2013, the High Court in Kuala Lumpur ruled that Khoo need not meet the conciliatory body in London and that he could file his divorce petition in Malaysia.
On April 22, last year, the Court of Appeal remitted the case back to the High Court for a fresh trial to determine jurisdiction and domicile issues after ruling that there were too many disputed facts.
On Nov 28, last year, the High Court ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear Khoo's divorce petition.
Meanwhile, Chai filed the divorce petition in a London court in Feb 2013, seeking a £500 million (RM2.75billion) settlement.
The couple married in 1970 and have five grown-up children.
Both Chai and Khoo were not present in court today. However their youngest daughter Angeline Francis, 32, said she would relay the court's decision to her mother who is overseas.
Khoo's counsel Datuk Dr. C.V.Das said it was the first time that the common law rule had been challenged in the Court of Appeal.
He said today's decision was precedent and a confirmation of the court's position that the common law rule was the correct position in law. – Bernama