Advise clients in matrimonial disputes not to nit-pick, judge urges lawyers

 

Justice Evrol Mariette Peters said lawyers must be less combative and more collaborative to expedite the resolution of family law disputes.

KUALA LUMPUR: A judge has urged lawyers acting in family disputes to help the courts arrive at a speedy resolution of cases by advising their clients to adopt a give-and-take attitude, especially when children are involved.

Justice Evrol Mariette Peters acknowledged that cases involving divorce, the custody of children and property division often delve into deeply personal and emotionally charged matters.

“Given the delicacy of these issues, it is crucial for family lawyers to discern which battles to engage in and to steer clear of unnecessary conflicts, particularly those involving children,” she said.

Peters said there are no true victors in the realm of family court proceedings. For that reason, she said it was imperative that lawyers be less combative and instead adopt a more collaborative approach.

“This approach mandates that family justice be approached in a holistic, restorative and forward-thinking manner,” she said when allowing the claim of a woman, anonymised as HEK, for RM250 in monthly maintenance from her businessman husband, identified as ING.

The husband was also ordered to pay her RM1,500 to cover the wife’s outstanding mobile phone bills.

Peters ordered joint guardianship of the couple’s three children, but gave custody, care and control to the husband with access to the wife.

The husband has filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

During the hearing, the wife made several concessions including by agreeing to forgo her claim for custody since the children were already living with their father.

Instead, she asked for access and maintenance of a mere RM250.

Her husband, however, fought her tooth and nail at the hearing, refusing to agree to access or maintenance.

In a 19-page judgment released last week, Peters noted that following an application made by the wife in December last year, the parties attempted to mediate the dispute, but could not reach a resolution.

Peters commended lawyer Rabinder Singh, who was assisted by CL Chu, for the spirit of cooperation he showed in making several concessions in the best interests of the children.

Regrettably, she said, the same could not be said for the husband’s counsel, Khoo Ai Teng, who consistently rebuffed proposals and objected to nearly every suggestion put forward by Rabinder, including the wife’s modest claim for spousal maintenance.

“The respondent (husband) went so far as to nit-pick and raise objections about access time with the children,” she added.

Peters said Khoo’s repeated assertions that she had “no instructions” from her client had raised red flags regarding potential deliberate tactics aimed at prolonging the disposal of the wife’s application.

“In court proceedings, judges depend on lawyers to propel cases forward efficiently,” she said.

The couple were married in 2017 but the wife walked out of the matrimonial home four years later, citing an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage due to alleged physical abuse. - FMT