Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Divorce Family Law

法律更新 – 家庭法律 – 在有条件管制令期间我可以离婚吗?

走到尽,个性重大不适,无法相, 行管制令期间如果决定段婚姻, 我可以申请离婚?

根据我国的《1976年法律改革(结婚和离婚)法》, 倘若双方协议离婚, 双方面离​​婚呈请书需3个月的时间完成手续,便可解除夫妻关系; 而单方面离婚呈请书审讯时间则视个别案件而定。

如婚姻未2年,则不能提交离婚呈请, 但是一些状况除外, 例如:

第一类: 夫妻之一方改变信仰,信奉穆斯林;或第二类: 发生重大事而导致双方难以维持婚姻, 法官将会进行综合评量而裁定。根据上述情况, 案件可在结婚2年内提交离婚呈请书

在未得法院判决之前, 若生以下状况,我怎么?

个案一: 另一半未经我的同意擅自将小孩带离家庭; 或个案二:我与另一半已经离婚了,他却未经同意对我在肢体上进行亲密性骚扰行为, 我该怎么办?   个案一, 擅自将小孩带离家庭导致另一方无法与自己的小孩一起, 这已造成侵害身为父亲/母亲的亲权便可向法庭申请临时禁制令。个案二, 有些夫妻即便完成离婚手续依然同居, 处于这状况之下,其中一方若在未经同意的情况下有肢体上亲密的接触,造成另一方感到不舒服便可向法庭申请临时禁止令。

谓临时禁止令?

临时禁止令的存在是保护申请人, 要求另一方立即停止做某种事宜 , 一旦违反,等同触犯临时禁制令, 将会被依法起诉。

在有条件管制令期间我可以申请临时禁止令?

可以。

Recent Post

NAVIGATION AND SHIPPING LAW – COLLISION REGULATIONS – COLLISION AT SEA – A WAKE-UP CALL FOR ADHERING TO NAVIGATION RULES

The collision between the FMG Sydney and MSC Apollo highlights the critical importance of adhering to established navigation rules. Deviations, delayed actions, and reliance on radio communications instead of clear, early maneuvers can lead to disastrous outcomes. This case serves as a stark reminder for mariners: follow the rules, act decisively, and prioritize safety above assumptions.

Read More »

SHIPPING AND ADMIRALTY IN REM – A SINKING ASSET – COURT ORDERS SALE OF ARRESTED VESSEL TO PRESERVE CLAIM SECURITY

In a landmark admiralty decision, the High Court ordered the pendente lite sale of the arrested vessel Shi Pu 1, emphasizing the principle of preserving claim security over the defendant’s financial incapacity. The court ruled that the vessel, deemed a “wasting asset,” could not remain under arrest indefinitely without proper maintenance or security. This case reinforces the necessity for shipowners to manage arrested assets proactively to prevent significant financial and legal repercussions.

Read More »

EMPLOYMENT LAW – IS DIRECTOR A DIRECTOR OR EMPLOYEE? UNPACKING DUAL ROLES IN EMPLOYMENT LAW

The Court of Appeal clarified the dual roles of directors as both shareholders and employees, affirming that executive directors can qualify as “workmen” under the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The decision emphasizes that removal as a director does not equate to lawful dismissal as an employee unless due process is followed. This case highlights the importance of distinguishing shareholder rights from employment protections, ensuring companies navigate such disputes with clarity and fairness.

Read More »

COMMERCIAL CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE OR JUST EXCUSES? LESSONS FROM LITASCO V DER MOND OIL [2024] 2 LLOYD’S REP 593

The recent decision in Litasco SA v Der Mond Oil and Gas Africa SA [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 593 highlights the strict thresholds required to invoke defences such as force majeure and trade sanctions in commercial disputes. The English Commercial Court dismissed claims of misrepresentation and found that banking restrictions and sanctions did not excuse payment obligations under the crude oil contract. This judgment reinforces the importance of precise contractual drafting and credible evidence in defending against payment claims, serving as a cautionary tale for businesses navigating international trade and legal obligations.

Read More »

SHIPPING – LETTER OF CREDIT – LESSONS FROM UNICREDIT’S FRAUD CLAIM AGAINST GLENCORE

The Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in Unicredit Bank AG v Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 624 reaffirms the principle of autonomy in letters of credit and highlights the high evidentiary threshold for invoking the fraud exception. Unicredit’s claim of deceit was dismissed as the court found no evidence of false representations by Glencore, emphasizing that banks deal with documents, not underlying transactions. This case serves as a critical reminder for international trade practitioners to prioritize clear documentation and robust due diligence to mitigate risks in financial transactions.

Read More »

LAND LAW – PROPERTY SOLD TWICE: OWNERSHIP NOT TRANSFERRED IN FIRST SALE

This legal update examines the Court of Appeal’s decision in Malayan Banking Bhd v Mohd Affandi bin Ahmad & Anor [2024] 1 MLJ 1, which reaffirmed the binding nature of valid Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) and the establishment of constructive trust. The court dismissed claims of deferred indefeasibility by subsequent purchasers and a chargee bank, emphasizing the critical importance of due diligence in property transactions. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for financial institutions and vendors, reinforcing the need for meticulous compliance with legal and equitable obligations.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us