GOOD NEWS FOR MISTRESSES

Men beware! If you think you can get away leaving your mistresses just like that, after cohabiting with her, think again. Mistresses do have rights. This landmark decision should serve as a wake up call to all men, wife's and mistresses alike.

I will not be surprised if mistresses starts flocking to the court as the result of this ruling.

Men will tremble, woman will have added arsenals in the ever bitter gender war.

Now, what about those toyboys?

From The Star News Online
Mistresses have rights, too

By RAPHAEL WONG

PUTRAJAYA: Women, including mistresses, have rights in modern-day society and therefore should not be treated as chattel, the Court of Appeal ruled in a landmark decision.

Justice Gopal Sri Ram said following an English case law in 1858, the English courts at that time did not recognise the rights of women as they were then only considered as chattels.

However, he said the concepts in equity were not carved in stone and have since evolved according to the circumstances of contemporaneous society.

“Otherwise, women will have no rights at all today.

“Do you think in this day and age we should apply principles relevant to society, which treat women as chattels? It would be a retrogressive step.”

He said this in a landmark decision that unanimously allowed babysitter Heng Gek Kiau's appeal against a High Court decision to order her to transfer a single storey semi-detached house in Taman Sri Skudai, Johor Baru to her then lover Goh Koon Suan.

The High Court then had declared that Goh, a wealthy Singaporean businessman, was the owner of the property and that his mistress Heng had only held it in trust for him.

Justice Sri Ram, who sat with Justices Zainun Ali and Hasan Lah, said the decision in this case was “ground breaking” as this was the first time a court of law has ruled that a mistress has rights.

The Court of Appeal, in setting aside the High Court's orders, ordered Goh, 72, to pay costs.

The appellate court judges also ordered that Goh release the house's title deed to Heng and remove a private caveat he had lodged on that property.

In his statement of claim, Goh stated in 1968, that he met Heng, an Indonesian illegal immigrant then and five years later he cohabitated with her.

He claimed in 1980, after she had become a Malaysian citizen, he bought the house but kept the title deed with him.

Heng claimed that Goh bought her the house but throughout her stay, she had maintained and paid for all the utilities including the land assessment rate and the quit rent.