Lawyer Datuk Cyrus Das said a Federal Court ruling earlier today in Khoo's favor means that the estranged couple would not have to go through a process to seek reconciliation.

"Therefore the Court of Appeal judgment stands and therefore exemption is given from having to go before the reconciliation body.

"It would mean that the husband would be allowed to proceed with his petition in Malaysia filed in December 2014," he told reporters immediately after the Federal Court ruling.

The Federal Court ruling effectively upholds the Malaysian courts' previous decisions that Malaysia should be where the couple's divorce is decided.

Earlier, a Federal Court panel chaired by Tan Sri Suriyadi Halim Omar unanimously dismissed a leave application by Chai to challenge the constitutionality of the domicile rule ― where a wife's residing country has to follow her husband's and will be the place where a divorce is decided.

The panel, whose two other judges are Tan Sri Ahmad Maarop and Datuk Zainun Ali, also ordered Chai to pay RM20,000 in costs.

This morning when seeking the Federal Court's dismissal of Chai's legal bid, Cyrus had pointed out that she had already obtained on January 7 a conditional court order from the UK courts on the grounds that the marriage had broken down irretrievably and based on her continued stay in the UK for 12 months.

Cyrus had argued the UK court order recognising the couple's marriage as no longer viable has made Chai's leave application "academic", besides also making her three legal questions no longer relevant to her.

In today’s application seeking the Federal Court’s nod for an appeal, Chai set out three legal questions, including whether the rule of a wife following her husband’s domicile forms part of Malaysia’s common law after Independence Day.

She also wanted the country’s highest court to consider if this common law rule is ultra vires the Federal Constitution’s Articles 8(1) and 8 (2), and whether this rule should be abandoned by the Malaysian courts as being irrelevant due to local circumstances.

Article 8 (1) and Article 8 (2) states that all people are equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of gender.

Today, Chai's lawyer Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram had argued however that his client's legal bid is not academic, as the validity of the domicile rule would determine if the Malaysian courts have jurisdiction over his client.

Chai, who is no longer a Malaysian citizen and has expressed her desire to reside in the UK, previously failed to get the Malaysian courts to rule that the domicile rule was unconstitutional.

In the protracted legal battle, the 69-year-old Chai had sought for the UK courts to decide the divorce, with the laws there making it possible for her to gain up to half of Khoo’s estimated £400 million (RM2.1 billion) fortune.

Khoo, 77-year-old chairman of international fashion and interiors brand Laura Ashley, wanted to have the divorce heard in Malaysia, arguing that they were married in Malaysia where he also maintains his official residence. Khoo would risk losing less of his wealth if the trial is held here.

New Sin Yew, one of Chai's lawyers, today told reporters that financial proceedings are currently ongoing in the UK court for the purposes of division of the matrimonial assets.

He confirmed that his client has yet to apply for the decree absolute ― the final order that would end the marriage ― as they have to first go for the financial proceedings.