(Encl. 36) AW's Written Submissions - 20.10.2021

WA-24F-1-01/2021
Encl No. 36
This is NON-PAYABLE
document
H0272101 WA1321411341 20/10/2021 15:41:15
IN THE HIGH COURT OFWAM-A24LFA-Y1A-0A1/T2K02U1ALA
LUMPUR
TSH012...........................0.00 x 1
IN THE FEDERALJumlah
TERITORY,
RM****************************0.00
(FAMILY DIVISION)
ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. WA-24F-1-01/2021
BETWEEN
KATHLEEN WONG CHUIN LING

(NRIC NO.: 850808-14-5060) ...APPLICANT
AND
JUSTIN LAW JUN MING

(NRIC NO.: 851017-14-6141) ...RESPONDENT
SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT WIFE
With your leave My Lady, we humbly request leave to submit in English.
In these submissions, we will refer to the Applicant as “the Wife” and the
Respondent as “the Husband”. The two (2) children of the marriage will
collectively be referred to as “the Children”.
1.(A) We file these submissions

APPLICATIONS: in support CARE
CUSTODY, of the Wife’s
AND Enclosure
CONTROL 1 i.e. her
Originating Summons dated 4.1.2021; and in opposition to the Husband’s
Enclosure 10 i.e. the Notice of Application dated 15.2.2021. An Ex
Parte Order was granted on 8.1.2021 (Encl. 9).
S/N 2T0hFneC50qw8p92Oytefw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
2. In both, Enclosures 1 and 10, parties seek final orders in relation to the
custody, care and control of the Children, namely:-
2.1 Aiden James Law Guan Xian (“Aiden”), born 10.5.2019, now 2
years and 5 months old; and
2.2 Adam Zachery Law Guan Yan (“Adam”), born 26.8.2020, now 1
year and 2 months old.
3. The affidavits filed are as follows:-
Enclosure Affidavit Affirmed

2 Wife’s Affidavit in Support 4.1.2021
11 Husband’s Affidavit in Support 15.2.2021
19 Wife’s Affidavit in Reply 5.4.2021
20 Wong Peng Hoong’s Affidavit in Support 3.5.2021
23 Shynne Ducay’s Affidavit in Support
24.5.2021
24 Husband’s Affidavit in Reply
25 Wife’s Affidavit in Reply (2)
26 Wife’s Affidavit in Reply (WPH) 13.7.2021
27 Wife’s Affidavit in Reply (SD)
28 Wife’s Supplementary Affidavit 21.7.2021
29 Shynne Ducay’s Affidavit in Reply
4.8.2021
30 Wong Peng Hoong’s Affidavit in Reply
31 Husband’s Affidavit in Reply (2) 16.8.2021
33 Wife’s Affidavit in Reply (3)
34 Wife’s Affidavit in Reply (2) (WPH) 15.9.2021
35 Wife’s Affidavit in Reply (2) (SD)
3
4. The issues to be decided before this Honourable Court in relation to

Enclosures 1 and 10 are:-
4.1 which parent ought to have custody, care and control of the two
(2) Children, aged 2 years and 1 year; and
4.2 what access orders ought to be made.
5.(B) My Lady,
LAW: the law
ONLY is clear. Where
UNDISPUTED there TO
FACTS are various conflicting versions
BE CONSIDERED
and factual disputes on affidavits which cannot be resolved by
considering documents and parties have not been cross- examined and re-
examined, THE APPROACH to be taken is that: -
5.1 the disputed facts should be ignored; and
5.2 a decision should be made only on the undisputed facts.
See: [PC] Tay Bok Choon v Tahansan

Sdn Bhd [1987] CLJ (Rep) 24 at
Wife’s Bundle of Authorities
(“WBOA”), pg. 9, para (f).
6. This is the principle in the Privy Council case of Tay Bok Choon,
approved and applied in family matters involving the issue of custody of
children by our Court of Appeal in Diana Clarice Chan Chiing Hwa
v Tiong Chiong Hoo [2002] 1 CLJ 721. Siti Norma
4
Yaakob JCA had this to say when dealing with conflicting affidavit
evidence in a family matter and when children are involved: -
“Faced with such conflicting affidavit evidence what the trial

judge should have done was to sieve through such evidence,
consider only those that are undisputed or
uncontroverted and balance these with the consideration
of what would work towards the betterment and interests of
the four children. In this regard he is reminded of the
provisions of s. 88(2) of the Act and to act accordingly.”
(emphasis added)
See: WBOA, pg. 16, para (b) to (c)
7. Both parties have filed extensive affidavits, raising various allegations.

On the facts of this case, and the disputes of fact that arise, we submit
that only the undisputed facts ought to be considered.
8.(C) For
THEease, we set out theFACTS
UNDISPUTED Undisputed
material IN THIS CASEFacts:-
8.1 The Children are both of tender age i.e. Aiden is two (2) years
old and Adam is one (1) year old, and the law strongly
presumes that it is good for children below seven (7) to be with the
Mother.
See: Children’s birth certificates at Exh.
“JL-2”, Encl. 11
Also: s. 88(3) LRA at WBOA, pg. 3
5
8.2 There was an incident involving violence on 22.12.2020 that

caused the parties to separate.
See: H’s audio recording and transcript at Exh.

“JL-5”, H’s Encl. 11.
See: Paragraphs 23 and 23.1 to 23.7, W’s

Encl. 19
8.3 After keeping the Children away from the Wife for two and a half
(2½) weeks since 26.12.2020, the Husband had himself voluntarily
placed the Children in the sole custody, care and control
of the Wife since 12.1.2021 i.e. for the past 9 months.
See: Paragraph 66, H’s Encl. 11
See: Paragraphs 52 and 53, W’s Encl. 19
8.4 The Husband has been charged in the Criminal Court on 11.1.2021
under Section 323 Penal Code i.e. voluntarily causing hurt by
reason of the incident on 22.12.2020. The criminal case is now
pending trial.
8.5 On 19.1.2021, Protection Orders were applied for and

obtained by the Social Welfare Department on behalf of the Wife
and the Children, which prohibits and/or restrains the Husband and
his agents, inter alia, from:-
(a) using, and/or inciting any other person to use, domestic

violence on the Children and the Wife;
6
(b) being near or making direct contact with the Children and
the Wife, save with the presence of an enforcement officer.
See: Children and W’s Protection Orders at
Exh. “KWCL-7”, W’s Encl. 19
C1.
(D) Children
STATUTORYof Tender Years with IN
PRESUMPTION Mother: Welfare
FAVOUR and Interest
OF MOTHER
9. It is trite that it is the welfare and interest of the Child that is the
paramount and overriding consideration before this Honourable
Court in applications regarding children.
See: s. 88(2) LRA 1976; and s. 11

Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 at
WBOA, pg. 3 and 4
Also: [FC] Mahabir Prasad v Mahabir

Prasad [1982] 1 MLJ 189 at WBOA,
pg. 19
10. It is also trite law that children of tender years ought to be

with the mother. This is encapsulated in the legal presumption under
Section 88(3) of Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 (“LRA”)
in favour of the Wife that: -
“It is for the good of a child below the age of seven years
to be with his or her mother but in deciding whether that
presumption applies to the facts of any particular case, the
7
court shall have regard to the undesirability of disturbing

the life of a child by changes of custody”.
(emphasis added)
See: WBOA, pg. 3
C2. Case Law Applies the Strong Presumption in Favour of Mother
11. The Malaysian Court had recognized that the strong presumption in
favour of a mother of young children is not just founded on law but
on the nature of human relationships, and that a mother is entitled
to the custody and care of the child during what is called the period of
nurture, until the child attains seven (7) years.
See: [OCJ] K. Shanta Kumari v Vijayan

[1986] 2 MLJ 216 at WBOA, pg. 27
Also: [FC] Teh Eng Kim v Yew Peng Siong

[1977] 1 MLJ 234 at WBOA, pg. 34 to 35
C3. On Facts: Children are 2 and 1 year old: Presumption Applies
12. The Children in this case are two (2) years old and one (1) year old
respectively. Applying the statutory presumption, it is in the welfare and
best interest of the Children to be in the custody, care and control of the
Mother.
C4. Continuity of Care: Children with Mother Since 12.1.2021
13. Both Children have been in the Wife’s de facto custody since
12.1.2021 i.e. for the past nine (9) months, and that continuity
8
of care, which is also provided for in Section 88(3) LRA, ought

to be maintained.
14. The Court in Gan Koo Kea v Gan Shiow Lih [2003] 4 CLJ 539,
recognised that children needed continuity of care, Justice Low
Hop Bing held that:-
“As the children before me are both below seven years of

age, the rebuttable presumption under s. 88(3) is hereby
invoked to the effect that it is good for them to be with
their mother, who has always been with the children
since the separation of the parties herein, and under s.
88(3), it is undesirable to disturb the life of the children
by changes of custody.”
(emphasis added)
See: WBOA, pg. 46, para (g) to (h)
15. On our facts, the Children have been in the continuous sole custody and
care of Mother and that continuity of care ought to be maintained and the
Children should remain with the Mother, they being accustomed to and
having received the care, comfort and support from the Wife and her
family members.
C5. Husband Himself Recognises Wife Ought to Have Custody
16. The Husband, in his Affidavit declared that he returned the Children to
the Wife on his own accord on 8.1.2021.
9
17. By voluntarily returning the Children to the Wife, the Husband himself
recognised and acknowledged that the Children ought to be with their
Mother, she being the parent better able to care for and nurture their
Children.
E1.
(E) Strong
S.88(3)Grounds Required to Rebut
LRA PRESUMPTION Presumption:
NOT REBUTTED: Allegations
HUSBAND’S
ALLEGATIONS
Need UNSUBSTANTIATED
to be Substantiated
18. It is trite that strong grounds are needed to rebut the legal
presumption in favour of a mother under Section 88(3) LRA. The
Court of Appeal in Thanaletchimy Batamallai v. Vijaya Kumar
Kassinathan [2018] 8 CLJ 61 recognised this when her Ladyship
Umi Kalthum JCA found that the rebuttable presumption had not been
proven by the defendant father and stated:-
“[30] We were of the view that the care and custody of a

child below the age of seven years old would naturally
incline to the mother unless the presumption under s. 88(3)
of the LRA is rebutted. Strong grounds are needed to
rebut this presumption. In short, prima facie the care and
custody of a child of the tender age should remain with
the mother and strong grounds are required to justify
depriving the mother of such care and custody.
1
[31] In this present appeal, other than mere

unsubstantiated allegations by the defendant against the
plaintiff, there was no evidence to suggest that the
plaintiff was an unfit mother to her child.”
(emphasis added)
See: WBOA, pg. 56 and 57
19. That there must be strong grounds to rebut the statutory

presumption and evidence to support such rebuttals was again recently
restated by the Court of Appeal in Patricia Sue Lin Knudsen v
Joey James Ghazlan [2021] 7 CLJ 588.
19.1 The Learned High Court Judge dismissed the mother’s application
for guardianship, custody, care and control of her then two (2)
years old child, on the basis inter alia that-
(a) the mother had no parenting skills because of her 'hectic

social and work schedule' and that it was her mother who
had been, and continued to be, the main caregiver of the
child (para 40);
(b) the mother was morally unfit to be a mother based on her

affidavit statement where she said 'I am free to live my life
as I see fit' (para 44);
(c) the defendant i.e. the father's averments that she drove
without a licence and insurance with the child in the car and
under the influence of alcohol, leading to an accident (para
46); and
1
(d) the mother did not have the welfare and interest of the child
as her topmost priority, as there were concerns about her
cohabitating with a new partner (para 50).
See: WBOA, pg. 70 to 73, paras [40], [44],

[46] and [50]
19.2 On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the mother’s

appeal stating there was nothing to establish that the daily needs
of the child were deprived by the mother or the maternal
grandmother in taking care of the child. The Court of Appeal held:-
(a) The father in Patricia Knudsen did not provide any

evidence to substantiate his allegations against the mother;
See: WBOA, pg. 73, paras [42], [52] to [53]
(b) The Learned Judge had failed to consider that the mother
had given sufficient rebuttal to the father’s allegations
that:-
(i) the mother has flexible working hours that would

enable her to prioritise the child’s wellbeing at all
times, and she is taking care of the child with the
support of her Malaysian mother and her family
(paras 41 and 42);
(ii) she has never endangered the child’s life or put her in
harm’s way, and that she uses Grab car to safely move
around (para 49); and
1
(iii) the child has her own bedroom next to hers, and
evidence shows that the child is comfortable with the
mother’s partner (paras 50 and 51).
See: WBOA, pg. 71 to 73, para [41], [42],

[49], [51]
20. The Court of Appeal case of Patricia Knudsen is authority:-
20.1 that bare averments in affidavits, without any evidence to

substantiate the same,
20.2 was not sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption,
20.3 especially where the mother has set out her care
arrangements.
E2. On Our Facts: Husband Makes Unsubstantiated Allegations
21. On our facts, the Husband’s makes bare allegations against the Wife,
which are unsubstantiated as follows:-
21.1 that she spends all her time working, thus not able to care for the
Children;
21.2 that she was not the primary carer of the Children; and
21.3 that she is not in the right state of mind to care for the Children.
See: Paragraphs 70 to 89, H’s Encl. 11
1
22. These unsubstantiated allegations are clearly false afterthoughts, trumped

up by the Husband to make up a case for custody, he lying that he is
overcome with fear and is concerned about disruption to the Children’s
well-being, routine and safety.
E3. Undisputed: Husband Handed Children to Wife in January 2021
23. The Undisputed Fact that the Husband had handed both the Children
to the Wife in January 2021 alone shows that his allegations
cannot be true as otherwise he would not have handed the Children
back.
24. Since 12.1.2021, the Husband has not visited the Children or seen them,
despite the Wife offering supervised access, the Husband citing the
Protection Orders and saying he will leave it to Court as regards his
access. Clearly, if his concerns about the Wife’s care of the
Children were genuine, he would at least have wanted to
check for himself that the Children were fine.
E4. Wife’s Rebuttal Against Husband’s Allegations: Substantiated

by Evidence
25. On the issue of a working mother’s ability to care for her

child/children, the Court of Appeal in Patricia Knudsen held:-
“the issue of a hectic social and work schedule is not the

main criteria in ascertaining good parenting skills. A good
parenting skill would be to meet the daily needs of a child,
providing her with the right environment to grow up and to
1
provide her
1
with the emotional, physical and financial support. The

appellant had averred that she is taking care of the child with
the support of her Malaysian mother and her family.
... there is nothing to establish that the daily needs of

the child were deprived by the appellant or her mother in
taking care of the child. Added to that, the learned judge
had failed to consider the fact that the appellant has the
assistance of her family members to assist in raising the
child whenever necessary. Further, the appellant is
financially independent to raise the child. Therefore, there is
no dispute that the appellant can meet the daily needs of
the child, be it emotional, physical or financial. The
appellant has the capacity to take care of the welfare of the
child.”
(emphasis added)
See: WBOA, pg. 71, paras [41] and [42]
26. The Court of Appeal had clearly recognised that even where the mother
is a working mother and must rely on her family to assist in the care of
her child, it is not a sufficient ground to rebut the presumption under
Section 88(3) LRA, unless it is proven that the daily needs of the child
were deprived.
27. In fact, the Wife has provided evidence, including pictures and
photos, showing that she is capable of meeting the daily needs of the
Children; and that the Children are happy and well-cared for and
are thriving under her care for the past nine (9) months, the
Wife continuing to breast-feed the younger child.
1
27.1 At Enclosure 19:-
(a) Exhibit “KWCL-9”: photos and videos of her quality time

with the Children;
(b) Exhibit “KWCL-19”: photos showing her breastfeeding the

Children through direct latch and bottles;
(c) Exhibit “KWCL-22”: the log created by her setting out

Adam’s routine; and
(d) Exhibit “KWCL-23”: proofs of the purchases for Children’s

essentials and groceries made from her online accounts.
(a) Exhibit “KWCL-25”: contemporaneous evidence of her day-

to-day care and nurture of the Children which she had
shared with her friends;
(b) Exhibit “KWCL-28”: records of her organising the

Children’s various events and picnics; and
(c) Exhibit “KWCL-29”: recent photos of the Children under

her care showing them healthy and happy.
1
(a) Exhibit “KWCL-42”: photo in September 2021 showing

Adam still being breastfed through direct latch; and
(b) Exhibit “KWCL-44”: her involvement in managing the

family’s household needs.
E5. Wife’s Rebuttal: No Mental Health Issues
28. A simple perusal of the Husband’s affidavits show that save for bare
averments, the Husband did not provide any material evidence to
substantiate his allegations that the Wife is not in the right state of mind
to care for the Children.
29. As opposed to the Husband’s bare averments, the evidence before

this Honourable Court clearly show that, save for a brief and mild
period of post-natal anxiety after the second child Adam was born, the
Wife has no mental health issues as the Husband now alleges. The
Wife’s evidence shows:-
29.1 The MRI Report dated 4.1.2020 from Pantai Hospital Kuala
Lumpur shows that there is no abnormality with the Wife’s brain.
See: Exh. “KWCL-14”, W’s Encl. 19
29.2 Letter by Consultant Psychiatrist, Dr Lee Aik Hoe, dated 5.2.2021

shows that the Wife had recovered quicky from her
1
mild post-natal anxiety and the Wife is functioning normally

in thought and emotion.
See: Exh. “KWCL-10”, W’s Encl. 19
30. Although the Husband had two (2) individuals i.e. Shynne Ducay
(“Shynne”) and Wong Peng Hoong (“Wong”) to file affidavits in
support of his bare allegations against the Wife, we submit that these
affidavits ought to be treated with extreme caution, if not disregarded
and/or expunged by this Honourable Court as:-
30.1 The alleged observation by Shynne, who is the Husband’s maid, of

the Wife’s character is contradictory to evidence before the
Court and thus HIGHLY DISPUTED.
30.2 Shynne is also clearly not independent, the Husband having an

undue influence on Shynne as her employer.
See: Paragraphs 4, 4.1 to 4.5, W’s Encl. 27
30.3 The Husband’s undue influence on Shynne can be seen from the
fact of Shynne having informed the maid agent, Christopher Teo,
that she is scared and wishes to stop working for the Husband or
his mother.
See: Paragraphs 32 and 32.1, W’s Encl. 33
30.4 Similarly, the alleged observation by Wong as regards the Wife’s

behaviour and his diagnosis of the Wife allegedly having clinical
depression and/or post-natal hormonal imbalance are also
HIGHLY DISPUTED. In this regard:-
1
(a) Wong did not dispute Wife’s averments that he only

spent minimal time with the family.
See: Paragraphs 8 and 10, 10.1 to 10.2,

Wong’s Encl. 30
(b) Wong makes statements without basis, relying on hearsay

and what has been told to him.
See: Paragraphs 5 and 8, W’s Encl. 26; and

paragraphs 6 and 9, W’s Encl. 34
See: Paragraphs 5, 5.1 and 8, Wong’s Encl.

30
(c) Wong did not dispute Wife’s averments that he is not

professionally qualified to make statements about the Wife’s
mental health.
F1.
(F) Husband’s
HUSBANDHistory of Physical
CHARGED INAbuse
CRIMINAL COURT
FOR VOLUNTARILY CAUSING HURT
31. Although the Husband has his own version of the various events in the
marriage, what can be shown from the evidence before the
Court and cannot be disputed is that the Husband has anger
management issues and can be violent on impulse.
2
32. The audio recordings, which are undisputed and include even the
Husband’s audio recordings, are clear uncontroverted evidence of the
Husband’s temper, anger management issues and his physical violence,
including in the presence of the Children. This is UNDISPUTED and
clearly not in the welfare and interest of the Children to have
unsupervised access to the Husband.
33. We set out hereinbelow, for ease of My Lady, the recorded history
of the Husband’s anger outbursts and physical abuse of the Wife.
33.1 The Husband did not deny the male/person in the Wife’s
audio recordings and transcripts are not him. He only
makes bare denials and/or gives self-serving renditions of the
events, which contradict what is obvious in the audio
recordings.
See: H’s version of events at paragraphs 18,

18(a) to (c), H’s Encl. 24;
Also: Paragraphs 21, 21.1 to 21.2, H’s

Encl. 31
33.2 In fact, the Husband’s own audio recordings at Exhibits

“JL-4” to “JL-6”, Enclosure 11 show his anger
management issue and tendency to pose danger, which
eventually led to him being charged in the Criminal Court for the
incident on 22.12.2020.
2
(i) Abuse on 22.4.2016
34. Wife’s audio recording at Exhibit “KWCL-11(a)”, Enclosure 19, and its
transcript at Exhibit “KWCL-30”, Enclosure 25 show the Husband
gaslighting the Wife, he threatening divorce and blaming her for trivial
issues and things she had no control of, including that her slipper was on
his slipper; that there was only one fork; that her MBA studies were
taking up too much of her time.
35. The audio recording shows the Wife’s extreme emotional distress caused
by the Husband being unreasonable, emotionally manipulative and
threatening. In the audio recording, the Husband:-
35.1 admitted to being violent with the Wife and that he hated
himself for being violent, he saying:-
(at 26:00) “Kat. Don’t make me start being violent

again. I really hate myself being violent”
See: Transcript at Exh. “KWCL-30”, pg.

76, line 27, W’s Encl. 25
35.2 threatened to strangle the Wife, he saying:-
(at 33:00) “I feel like strangling you, do you know why I

feel like strangling you?”

2
35.3 pushed the Wife and had thrown a metal spoon at her thereby
causing her injury, Wife saying:-
(at 23:43) “Dear, you know you throw the spoon at me,
I have a lump on my leg now, you know or not”

75, line 25 - 26, W’s Encl. 25
(at 57:00) “You have been throwing things, and you

have been being emotional. You have been pushing
me and everything”

89, line 12 – 13, W’s Encl. 25
(at 01:22:10) “Stop throwing things at me la. I

understand that you want me to treat you important,
and stop throwing metal things around, it’s dangerous!”

99, line 27 – 28, W’s Encl. 25
35.4 threatened to use physical violence on the Wife, he saying:-
(at 01:21:19) “Don't let me come and whack you you

know, seriously”

99, line 14 – 15, W’s Encl. 25
2
(at 01:22:20) “I really want to punch you so hard you

know, seriously. I really want to, uhh”

(ii) Abuse on 30.7.2019
36. Wife’s audio recording at Exhibit “KWCL-31”, Enclosure 25, and its
transcript at Exhibit “KWCL-40”, Enclosure 28 show the Husband being
triggered by trivial matter and he being unable to control his temper, he
was verbally and physically abusive towards the Wife even while she was
breastfeeding Aiden. In his angry tirade, the Husband had:-
36.1 threatened to slap the Wife, Husband saying “Don’t come and,
don’t give me that look. I will slap you right now. I will slap
you right now!”
See: Transcript at Exh. “KWCL-30”, pg. 89,
line 16 – 17, andvpg. 99, line 27
– 28, Encl. 25
36.2 thrown a phone at the Wife while she was breastfeeding Aiden. It
can be heard from the audio recording at 13:18, a thud sound from
the Husband throwing a phone at the Wife; and at 13:42, a sound
made by Aiden showing he was with the Wife.
2
(iii) Abuse on 18.2.2020
37. Wife’s audio recording at Exhibit “KWCL-11(b)”, Enclosure 19, and its
transcript at Exhibit “KWCL-39”, Enclosure 28 show the Husband
completely out of control and physically abusive, notwithstanding the
Wife was pregnant at the time.
38. In the audio recording, the Husband was shouting in the presence of
Aiden, he demanding the Wife to talk with him in the room. Despite the
Wife saying they should talk later (she afraid as the Husband was clearly
emotionally unstable at the time), he continued to demand the talk.
38.1 From 01:28 onwards, Aiden was crying due to the commotion, but
the Husband did not stop shouting.
See: Transcript at Exh. “KWCL-39”, pg. 1, line

1, to pg. 3, line 12, W’s Encl. 28
38.2 From 02:35 onwards, the Wife screamed from being forcefully
pulled into the room.

13, W’s Encl. 28
38.3 Between 03:12 and 07:16, the Husband was out of control and
was physically abusive.
03:12~ Wife tried to leave, the Husband had snatched her belongings and was a
2
03:30~ Husband hyperventilating, crying, broke down

emotionally and started throwing things around.
04:12~ Husband out of control and started hitting himself, he also

violently grabbed the Wife’s hand to hit himself. Wife
called for Shynne’s help.
04:28~ Husband unable to calm down despite the Wife begging him
to stop. She again called for Shynne’s help. Husband
continues to hyperventilate and shout.
04:54~ Husband stopped Shynne from intervening when Wife

asked her to open the door.
05:05~ Wife screaming in pain due to the Husband’s abuse and

begging him to stop.
05:35~ Wife begging Shynne to help her.
05:41~ Shynne tried to stop the Husband, saying Aiden is

crying.
06:09~ Wife again screaming in pain.
06:12~ Husband shouted, “Don’t you dare go!”
06:18~ Wife and Shynne trying to calm Husband down.
07:04~ Wife again screamed from Husbands abuse.

14, to pg. 5, line 17, W’s Encl. 28
38.4 From 07:29 onwards, the Husband again demanded the Wife to
talk in the room, he threatening her “I will die. Either the
2
baby or you will die ... You'd better come in now” The
Husband continued shouting even though Aiden was crying.

38.5 At 38:12, Shynne acknowledged the Wife’s difficulties, saying

“It's hard in your part. It's hard in your part mum!”.

39. The above show that Shynne, the maid, had heard this argument and the
many others the Husband and Wife had had. Her statements in her
affidavits now all allegedly supporting the Husband’s version clearly
show she has been influenced by the Husband to only give testimony
favourable to him, regardless of the truth of events.
(iv) Abuse on 17.5.2020
40. Wife’s audio recording at Exhibit “KWCL-31”, Enclosure 19, and its
transcript at Exhibit “KWCL-41”, Enclosure 28 show the Husband being
verbally and physically abusive. At 01:28, the Wife cried in pain from the
Husband throwing the computer at her: “Owww… stop it! You threw
it at my face!”; “You threw the… man! You threw the rubber
twice at my stomach and hit my stomach, you threw the
computer at my face!”.

21, line 11, 20, 25 - 26, Encl. 28
2
(v) Abuse and Self-Harming on 25.10.2020
41. Husband’s audio recording and transcript at Exhibit “JL-5”, Enclosure 11

show the Husband again gaslighting the Wife, he blaming her for his bad
temper and abuse. The argument escalated and eventually the Husband
lost control and started self-harming. The audio recording shows:-
41.1 from 01:53 onwards, the Husband admitted to having bad

temper, insecurities and things that trigger him, he saying “I
acknowledge I have a temper and I told you my insecurities
and I told you I made clear what makes me tick”.
See: Transcript at Exh. “JL-4”, pg. 1 and 3,

H’s Encl. 11
41.2 from 07:15 onwards: the Husband again admitted to having a bad
temper and he physically abuses, he saying “Although I am your
husband I keep trying to fight back to pull myself back, but I
keep hitting. I am the person who gets hit the most by you.
Not physically. Mentally and emotionally. And I have a bad
temper and that is a bad recipe. I hate myself being like
this”.
See: Transcript at Exh. “JL-4”, pg. 3, H’s Encl.

11
41.3 from 13:33 onwards: the Husband admitted to being physical with
the Wife.
See: Transcript at Exh. “JL-4”, pg. 6, H’s Encl.
11
2
41.4 from 16:20 onwards: the Husband started losing his cool and
becoming intimidating when the Wife talked about him not having
a job. Wife was in fear and trauma when the Husband grabbed her
hand and refused to let go.
See: Transcript at Exh. “JL-4”, pg. 6 - 8, H’s

Encl. 11
41.5 from 18:20 onwards: when the Wife suggested that she stops
working and that the Husband pays her monthly maintenance and
to put the Matrimonial Home in their joint name, the Husband lost
his temper and started shouting.
See: Transcript at Exh. “JL-4”, pg. 8 - 9, H’s

Encl. 11
41.6 from 20:30 onwards: the Husband, in his rage, started slapping
himself, before rushing into the kitchen looking for a knife to
kill himself, he saying “Where is the knife? I want to kill
myself”. Shortly after, Shynne can be heard trying to stop the
Husband from self-harming, saying “Sir, don’t la. Sir!”
See: Transcript at Exh. “JL-4”, pg. 9 - 10,

H’s Encl. 11
42. Again, Shynne had witnessed and intervened in this incident, yet
provides an affidavit to this Honourable Court that is contrary to the
audio recording provided by the Husband himself. Shynne is clearly
biased and influenced by the Husband to only give testimony favourable
to him.
2
F2 Incident Leading to Criminal Charge: Husband’s Murder-

Suicide Attempt on 22.12.2020
43. On 11.1.2021, the Husband was charged in the Kuala Lumpur Magistrate
Court under Section 323 Penal Code for voluntarily causing hurt to the
Wife. The criminal case is now pending trial.
44. The charge was in relation to the incident between the late night of
22.12.2020 and early morning of 23.12.2020 where the Husband
attempted murder-suicide, threatening the Wife to “die together”.
45. While the Husband has his own version of the incident, it cannot be
disputed and is clearly shown from the Husband’s own audio
recording and transcript at Exhibits “JL-5”, Enclosure 11 that:-
45.1 on 22.12.2020, an argument arose between the parties as to the

issues in their marriage.
See: Transcript at pg. 1 to 20
45.2 from 43:33 mark onwards, when the Wife disagreed with the
Husband, she saying she does not believe his words, the Husband
had suddenly lost control and proceeded to violently drag the Wife
towards the balcony of their apartment on the 13th floor while
saying “We will die together now”, the Husband causing the
Wife to bruise her arm.
See: UMMC Medical Report regarding the

Wife’s bruise at Exh. “KWCL- 24”,
W’s Encl. 25
3
45.3 from 44:05 mark onwards, even when the Wife was in pain, the
Husband did not stop and continued to say “Let’s die together.
Let’s die together now. We will die together.” In panic, the
Wife had then screamed for Shynne’s help (at 44:12).
See: Transcript at pg. 21
46. Clear from the Husband’s audio recording that his murder-suicide
attempt was on impulse and the Wife was obviously caught off guard.
She then, in a panic had tried to coax and beg the Husband to stop, her
abject fear being evident from the Husband’s audio recording.
47. Although the Husband has pleaded not guilty to the criminal charge in
the Magistrates Court, he attempting to water down his murder- suicide
attempt, the fact remains that he was charged after investigations by the
police. It was not a case where the police deemed no further action
required. The Husband is currently released on bail subject to conditions,
inter alia, that are similar to the Protection Orders dated 19.1.2021.
48. From the UNDISPUTED evidence in the audio recordings and the
Husband’s history of physical violence and his inability to control his
anger, clearly it cannot be in the welfare and best interest of the
Children to be in the custody, care and control of the
Husband and any access must be supervised to ensure their
safety.
49. In fact My Lady, the Protection Orders dated 19.1.2021 continue to be in

force.
3
(G) PROTECTION ORDERS: REQUIRE CUSTODY, CARE

AND CONTROL TO WIFE AND ACCESS SUPERVISED
50. Subsequent to the Husband being charged, to further ensure the

Children’s and the Wife’s safety, the Social Welfare Department had on
19.1.2021 obtained Protection Orders in the Kuala Lumpur Criminal
Magistrate Court on behalf of the Children and the Wife.
51. The three (2) Protection Orders at Exhibit “KWCL-7”, Enclosure 19

provides inter alia as follows:-
51.1 that the Husband is prohibited from using, and/or inciting any
other person to use, domestic violence on the Children and the
Wife;
51.2 that the Husband is prohibited or restricted inter alia from:-
(a) entering the Children’s and the Wife’s place of

residence as well as the Wife’s workplace;
(b) being near the Children and the Wife within 50 metres; and
(c) making direct contact with the Children and the Wife
save with the presence of an enforcement officer.
51.3 that the Protection Orders shall have effect for twelve (12) months
from the date of the Protection Orders; and
3
51.4 that the Respondent can be arrested and convicted for disobeying
the Protection Orders.
52. In light of the prohibitions and restrictions imposed on the

Husband, we submit that custody, care and control of the
Children ought to be given to the Wife. Access must also be
supervised, for the protection of the Children.
53.
(H) InACCESS:
alternative to sole custody,
RIGHT care and HAS
OF CHILD: controlTO
of the Children, the
PROMPT
Husband seeks THE CHILDREN’S
reasonable WELFARE
access, including every weekend from Friday
evening to Monday morning, during the Children and his family
members’ birthday and all Chinese festive holidays.
54. The Wife seeks orders for supervised access to the Husband on prior
notice, this being essential to ensure the safety of the Children. Further,
the supervised access is also in compliance with the Protection Orders
dated 19.1.2021 currently in effect and the bail conditions imposed on the
Husband by the Criminal Court.
55. The law regarding access has been succinctly expressed by her Ladyship
Zainun Ali in Leong Sam Moy v Low Chee Thiam [1997] 2 CLJ
Supp 212 at page 214 as follows:-
“The law as it stands on this authority cited before me says

that … “access is the basic right of the child rather than
3
the parent” … “The Court must consider whether the

welfare of the children is prompted by access or the
reverse and decide accordingly …”.
(emphasis added)
See: WBOA, pg. 79, para (f)
56. On the undisputed facts submitted hereinabove, there is clearly a need for
the Husband’s access to the Children to be supervised. This is to
ensure the safety of the Children, the evidence before the Court
having shown that the Husband has anger management issues and can be
aggressive and violent when, often losing control.
57.
(I) InCONCLUSION
the circumstances, we pray that the Husband’s application in
Enclosure 10 be dismissed with cost, and for a final order as per the terms
in the Ex parte Order dated 8.1.2021 (Enclosure 9) as follows:-
57.1 that sole custody, care and control of both Children of marriage,
namely Aiden James Law Guan Xian and Adam Zachery Law
Guan Yan (“the Children”) be given to the Wife, Kathleen Wong
Chuin Ling;
57.2 that the Husband, Law Jun Ming Justin, his agent and/or servant,
are prohibited and restrained from harassing, and/or
3
in any manner whatsoever use violence on the Wife and/or the

Children;
57.3 that the Husband is prohibited from taking the Children from the
Wife’s custody without her permission;
57.4 that the Husband be given right to supervised visitation, without

permission for the Children to overnight with the Husband, and
this right of visitation shall be obtained from the Wife in advance
before the Husband intends to visit.
Dated the 20th day of October 2021.
Messrs Y. N. Foo & Partners
…………………………………………..….
SOLICITORS FOR THE APPLICANT
This Written Submissions was filed by Messrs Y.N. Foo & Partners, solicitors
for the Applicant abovenamed with an address for service at di H-2-12, Block
H, Plaza Damas, Jalan Sri Hartamas 1, 50480 Kuala Lumpur. Tel. No. 03-
62032848 Fax No. 03-62032847

(Encl. 36) AW's Written Submissions - 20.10.2021

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

(Encl. 36) AW's Written Submissions - 20.10.2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WA-24F-1-01/2021

KATHLEEN WONG CHUIN LING

JUSTIN LAW JUN MING

SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT WIFE

With your leave My Lady, we humbly request leave to submit in English.

1.(A) We file these submissions

3. The affidavits filed are as follows:-

Enclosure Affidavit Affirmed

4. The issues to be decided before this Honourable Court in relation to

4.2 what access orders ought to be made.

5.1 the disputed facts should be ignored; and

5.2 a decision should be made only on the undisputed facts.

See: [PC] Tay Bok Choon v Tahansan

“Faced with such conflicting affidavit evidence what the trial

7. Both parties have filed extensive affidavits, raising various allegations.

Also: s. 88(3) LRA at WBOA, pg. 3

8.2 There was an incident involving violence on 22.12.2020 that

See: H’s audio recording and transcript at Exh.

See: Paragraphs 23 and 23.1 to 23.7, W’s

See: Paragraphs 52 and 53, W’s Encl. 19

See: Paragraph 65, H’s Encl. 11

See: Paragraphs 52 and 53, W’s Encl. 19

8.5 On 19.1.2021, Protection Orders were applied for and

(a) using, and/or inciting any other person to use, domestic

See: s. 88(2) LRA 1976; and s. 11

Also: [FC] Mahabir Prasad v Mahabir

10. It is also trite law that children of tender years ought to be

court shall have regard to the undesirability of disturbing

C2. Case Law Applies the Strong Presumption in Favour of Mother

See: [OCJ] K. Shanta Kumari v Vijayan

Also: [FC] Teh Eng Kim v Yew Peng Siong

C3. On Facts: Children are 2 and 1 year old: Presumption Applies

C4. Continuity of Care: Children with Mother Since 12.1.2021

of care, which is also provided for in Section 88(3) LRA, ought

“As the children before me are both below seven years of

C5. Husband Himself Recognises Wife Ought to Have Custody

See: Paragraph 66, H’s Encl. 11

“[30] We were of the view that the care and custody of a

[31] In this present appeal, other than mere

19. That there must be strong grounds to rebut the statutory

(a) the mother had no parenting skills because of her 'hectic

(b) the mother was morally unfit to be a mother based on her

See: WBOA, pg. 70 to 73, paras [40], [44],

19.2 On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the mother’s

(a) The father in Patricia Knudsen did not provide any

(i) the mother has flexible working hours that would

See: WBOA, pg. 71 to 73, para [41], [42],

20. The Court of Appeal case of Patricia Knudsen is authority:-

20.1 that bare averments in affidavits, without any evidence to

20.2 was not sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption,

E2. On Our Facts: Husband Makes Unsubstantiated Allegations

See: Paragraphs 70 to 89, H’s Encl. 11

22. These unsubstantiated allegations are clearly false afterthoughts, trumped

E3. Undisputed: Husband Handed Children to Wife in January 2021

E4. Wife’s Rebuttal Against Husband’s Allegations: Substantiated

25. On the issue of a working mother’s ability to care for her

“the issue of a hectic social and work schedule is not the

with the emotional, physical and financial support. The

... there is nothing to establish that the daily needs of

27.1 At Enclosure 19:-

(a) Exhibit “KWCL-9”: photos and videos of her quality time

(b) Exhibit “KWCL-19”: photos showing her breastfeeding the