Breach of Promise to Marriage 悔婚-2

1. P是一名已婚妇女，但与丈夫分开居住而D是一名单身男子。因D违反承诺与P结婚，P把D告上法庭，要求赔偿。
2. 当P仍然结婚时，D仍然在2002年与她交往。D承诺与她结婚并与P在在2004年开始同居。然而，当P的丈夫在2011年去世时，P能够并愿意与D正式登记结婚的时候，D否定了他与P结婚的承诺
3. 有证据证明：

（a）2002年，P离开Bintulu，与D交往。那个时刻，D是单身，他知道P已婚，但与丈夫分开居住;

（b）在2004年，依赖D承诺娶P为妻的誓言，P与D同居于Sibu的木屋中。同居时期有照片为证;

（c）P花费与海外旅行D的开销，拍摄婚纱照，买家具以及与D亲戚朋友结婚仪式的费用;和

（d）2011年，当P的丈夫去世时，D已经违背了他与P结婚的承诺，因为她已经能够并愿意与D正式注册结婚。

 

 法院的判决：

1. P的版本通过照片，在照片，文件得到充分证实，最可信的证据是有关婚礼仪式，同居，家庭照片，购买家具和海外旅行。
2. D不允许以P是已婚妇女的情况作为借口，受益于自己的错误，并以“违法“，”违反公共政策“，”不明朗“和”不可合法执行” 为理由去否认他的结婚承诺。
3. D因违反与P结婚的承诺，所以必须赔偿P。

 

1. P (a married woman but lived seperately from her husband) claim for damages from D for breach of promise to marry D (a single man).
2. When P is still married, D still befriended with her in 2002. D promised to marry P and cohabited with P in 2004. However, when P’s husband passed away in 2011, P was able, willing and ready to register a formal marriage with D but D repudiated his promise to marry P.
3. There were evidence that:

(a) in year 2002, P left Bintulu and befriended with D. At that material time, D is single and he knew that P is married but living separately from her husband;

(b) in the year 2004 and in reliance of D’s promise to marry, P cohabited with D in a wooden house situated at Sibu The said cohabitation is supported by photographs;

(c) P had incurred expenses for travelling overseas with D, taking marriage photographs, buying furniture and marriage ceremony with relatives and friends with D; and

(d) in 2011 when the P’s husband passed away, D had breached his promise to marry P when she is able, willing and ready to register a formal marriage with D.

 

Court held:

1. P’s version of events are sufficiently corroborated and/or substantiated by photographs, documents, the most credible are the photographs pertaining to marriage ceremony, cohabitation, family photographs, purchase of furniture and overseas trip.
2. D should not be allowed to take advantage of the position of married woman and benefited by his own wrong and subsequently relied on illegality, contrary to public policy, uncertainty and unenforceability to discharge his promise to marry.
3. D is liable to pay damages for his breached of promise to marry P.

 

[2015] MLJU 354 HC

 

---

 

*Please contact us for appointment and/or business enquiries.

*Please visit our FB law Group: http://bit.ly/fblawnjustice

*Please visit our web forum: http://www.queco.org

*Please subscribe our YouTube: http://bit.ly/lawnjustice

Kuek Ong Associates